State v. Hitopoulus, 22008
| Decision Date | 28 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 22008,22008 |
| Citation | 309 S.E.2d 747,279 S.C. 549 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. George James HITOPOULUS, Appellant. |
Asst. Appellate Defender Elizabeth C. Fullwood, of S.C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Atty. Carlisle Roberts, Jr., and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant George James Hitopoulus was convicted of murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and grand larceny of a vehicle. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment for murder, twenty-five years' imprisonment for armed robbery, five years' imprisonment or a Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollar fine for conspiracy, and ten years' imprisonment for grand larceny. The main issue on appeal involves the refusal of the trial judge to allow appellant to call as a witness the psychiatrist who examined David Roton, his co-defendant who pled guilty to the crimes. We affirm.
At appellant's trial, he sought to examine Roton's psychiatrist who had been employed by Roton's counsel to aid in the preparation of the case. Roton's counsel had told Roton his communications with the psychiatrist would remain confidential. The trial judge refused to allow appellant to question the psychiatrist about any confidential information on the ground that the attorney-client privilege extended to these communications.
Courts in many jurisdictions have held the attorney-client privilege extends to communications between the client and a psychiatrist retained to aid in the preparation of a case. See Annot., 14 A.L.R. 4th 594, 624-630 (1982).
In United States ex rel. Edney v. Smith, 425 F.Supp. 1038 (E.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd without op. 556 F.2d 556 (CA2 1977), cert. den. 431 U.S. 958, 97 S.Ct. 2683, 53 L.Ed.2d 276, the court balanced two competing factors to determine the extent to which the attorney-client privilege extends to a communications by a client to a non-lawyer: (1) the need of the attorney for the assistance of the non-lawyer to effectively represent his client, and (2) the increased potential for inaccuracy in the search for truth as the trier of fact is deprived of valuable witnesses.
Roton's attorney employed the psychiatrist for assistance in the preparation of Roton's defense. She told Roton anything he said to the psychiatrist would remain confidential. The psychiatrist was, in effect, the attorney's agent for that transmission to the attorney of confidential facts.
Appellant merely sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Floyd
...omitted). Ross at 383-84, 453 S.E.2d at 884-85. The privilege may extend to agents of the attorney. For example, in State v. Hitopoulus, 279 S.C. 549, 309 S.E.2d 747 (1983), our supreme court held the attorney-client privilege extended to communications between a client and a psychiatrist r......
-
People v. Knuckles, 73616
...ed. 1961)." (Emphasis in original.) Knippenberg, 66 Ill.2d at 283-84, 6 Ill.Dec. 46, 362 N.E.2d 681. See also State v. Hitopoulus (1983), 279 S.C. 549, 550, 309 S.E.2d 747, 748 (holding that psychiatrist was, "in effect, the attorney's agent for * * * transmission to the attorney of confide......
-
Smith v. Moore
...to cover a defendant's communications with a psychiatrist employed to help prepare the insanity defense, 10 see State v. Hitopoulus, 279 S.C. 549, 309 S.E.2d 747, 749 (1983), Smith is entitled to habeas relief only if the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State calls a defense-retained p......
-
State v. Marrapese
...v. Scott, 503 Pa. 624, 470 A.2d 91 (1983); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 290 Pa.Super. 254, 434 A.2d 740 (1981); State v. Hitopoulus, 279 S.C. 549, 309 S.E.2d 747 (1983). Our conclusion in Juarez was that the attorney-client privilege should not be breached routinely. The circumstances of thi......