State v. George, 48562
Decision Date | 25 February 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 48562,48562 |
Citation | 223 Kan. 507,575 P.2d 511 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Wayman L. GEORGE, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Information obtained by a physician during the examination of a patient is privileged and may not be received in evidence as a part of the prosecution's case during a misdemeanor trial over the objection of the patient-defendant.
2. The presence of peace officers during the examination of a patient-defendant by a physician does not necessarily require a holding that the information obtained by the physician is not confidential, or that the patient-physician privilege is waived.
Stanley R. Juhnke, of Dinges, Gottschalk, Bolton & Juhnke, Hutchinson, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellant.
Kenneth R. Heer, County Atty., argued the cause, and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal by the defendant, Wayman L. George, from his conviction for operating a vehicle while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of K.S.A. 8-1567 (now K.S.A.1977 Supp. 8-1567). After conviction by a jury, George was sentenced to six months in jail, placed on probation, and given a restricted driver's license which permitted him to drive to and from work.
He raises but one point: that it was a violation of the physician-patient privilege, as set out in K.S.A. 60-427, to allow into evidence the testimony of Dr. Lester Donley. The parties have stipulated that George would not have been convicted without the doctor's testimony; thus if the admission of the testimony was error, it was reversible error.
Deputy Sheriff Kerns was the first witness for the state. He testified that he arrested George on the afternoon of July 10, 1975, and took him from the scene to the county jail. George admitted that he had ingested some "Old Charter" that afternoon, but refused to take a blood alcohol test, or the heel-to-toe or finger-to-nose tests. He told the officers that he had struck his head, and he asked them to call his physician, Dr. Donley. When the doctor arrived, the undersheriff brought George into the sheriff's office where Dr. Donley examined him in the presence of Kerns and Deputy Sheriff Maddox.
After the doctor finished his examination, Kerns asked George if he would perform the heel-to-toe and finger-to-nose tests. George agreed to the tests if Dr. Donley would witness them. Kerns then proceeded to administer the tests, first by having George attempt to walk in a straight line by placing the heel to the toe, and next by having him attempt to touch the end of his nose while his eyes were closed. Kerns said that George had quite a problem in placing the heel to toe, and keeping his balance. He was wobbling as he walked. When George closed his eyes and attempted to touch the end of his nose, he fell back in a chair against the wall, and said that no one could do the test.
The state's second witness was Dr. Donley. He was asked what he did in examining the defendant, and what the results of that examination were. At this point defense counsel objected for the reason that the testimony would violate the patient-physician privilege, K.S.A. 60-427. The state contended that the information was not confidential since it was transmitted in the presence of the two officers, whose presence was not "reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information." The trial court overruled the objection.
The doctor then testified that he examined George's head and found no injuries; the pupils of his eyes were equal but he had difficulty in following movement precisely; his heart, blood pressure, and pulse were all within normal limits. Dr. Donley then described George's attempts to perform the heel-to-toe and finger-to-nose tests. In Dr. Donley's opinion, the symptoms he observed were not indicative of a blow to the head or a concussion; in his opinion, George was under the influence of alcohol.
K.S.A. 60-407 sets forth the general rule that:
"Except as otherwise provided by statute (a ) every person is qualified to be a witness, and . . . (e ) no person has a privilege that another shall not be a witness or shall not disclose any matter . . . and (f ) all relevant evidence is admissible."
An exception to this general rule is provided by K.S.A. 60-427 which reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Marquez
...privileged where sheriff was present during treatment and any information acquired was "readily discernible" to all); State v. George, 223 Kan. 507, 575 P.2d 511 (1978) (physician's opinion that defendant was under influence of alcohol, based upon examination at jail, was privileged because......
-
Garcia v. Estate of Arribas
...978 P.2d 902, 909 (1999); Adams v. St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., 264 Kan. 144, 162, 955 P.2d 1169, 1180-81 (1998); State v. George, 223 Kan. 507, 510, 575 P.2d 511, 515 (1978); Armstrong v. Topeka Ry. Co., 93 Kan. 493, 503, 144 P. 847, 850 (1914). The case at bar fits into neither of these N......
-
State v. Almonte, 93-374-C
...statutes. See, e.g., People v. Marquez, 692 P.2d 1089 (Colo.1984); Collins v. Bair, 256 Ind. 230, 268 N.E.2d 95 (1971); State v. George, 223 Kan. 507, 575 P.2d 511 (1978); Popp v. Crittenton Hospital, 181 Mich.App. 662, 449 N.W.2d 678 (1989); State v. Smorgala, 50 Ohio St.3d 222, 553 N.E.2d......
-
State v. Roper
...a not guilty plea. Elwell, 567 A.2d at 1007 (litigant did not place condition at issue by pleading not guilty); State v. George, 223 Kan. 507, 575 P.2d 511, 517 (1978) (same). But see State v. Tu, 17 Ohio App.3d 159, 478 N.E.2d 830, 834 (1984) (not guilty plea placed defendant's physical co......