State v. Pitchford
Citation | 697 P.2d 896,10 Kan.App.2d 293 |
Decision Date | 11 April 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 57430,57430 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Richard D. PITCHFORD, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Before the physician-patient privilege under K.S.A. 60-427 may be sustained, three requirements must be met: (1) There must be a "patient" and a "physician"; (2) there must be a "confidential communication between physician and patient"; and (3) either the physician or the patient must have "reasonably believed the communication necessary or helpful to enable the physician" to treat or diagnose the patient's condition.
2. A person may be a patient and the physician-patient privilege may apply where a physician attends a person for the purpose of giving professional aid even though the person attended is unconscious or unaware of his presence, does not consent, or actually objects to being treated.
Morgan Metcalf, County Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Paul D. Hogan, of Wichita, for appellee.
Before FOTH, C.J., SWINEHART, J., and FREDERICK WOLESLAGEL, District Judge Retired, Assigned.
This is an interlocutory appeal taken by the State from the district court's order suppressing the results of the defendant's blood test on the basis of the physician-patient privilege under K.S.A. 60-427.
On May 26, 1984, Butler County Sheriff's officers, responding to a report of a one-car accident on Highway 96, located a wrecked car just off the highway. Upon arriving at the accident site, these officers learned that the driver of the car was not at the scene of the accident. This information was radioed to other officers responding to the accident. One of these additional officers, while driving to the scene, saw a man, later identified as the defendant, Richard Pitchford, walking through a pasture sixty to seventy yards south of the highway. Believing that the man might be the driver, the officer shouted at him to stop. Rather than stopping, the man ran. The officer radioed for assistance and gave chase.
The officer caught Pitchford and, after a struggle, wrestled him to the ground. Pitchford, who had alcohol on his breath, was wheezing and bleeding badly from lacerations to his head and arm. After other officers arrived, they attempted to stop the bleeding, but Pitchford combatively resisted all efforts to render medical aid. When he continued to struggle and resist medical assistance, the officers handcuffed him and drove him back to the highway, where he was transferred to an ambulance which took him to the hospital.
Once at the hospital, Pitchford violently resisted the emergency room doctor's (Dr. McGovern) attempts to stitch his wounds. Apparently unsure of the cause of this combativeness, the doctor ordered a blood test to determine what Pitchford "had in his system." An officer who had accompanied Pitchford to the hospital then asked whether he could obtain a copy of the blood test results; this request was granted by the doctor. The test indicated Pitchford's blood alcohol content was 0.226 percent.
Pitchford was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving left of center, driving without valid tags, and resisting arrest. He subsequently moved to suppress the results of the blood test. The district court initially denied this motion but, upon reconsideration, it ruled that the physician-patient privilege precluded the State from introducing results of the test into evidence. The State now brings this interlocutory appeal.
We are met at the outset by the defendant's claim that this court has no jurisdiction. The State, under K.S.A. 22-3603, may take an interlocutory appeal from a pretrial suppression order which substantially impairs the State's ability to prosecute the case. State v. Newman, 235 Kan. 29, 34-35, 680 P.2d 257, 259 (1984). Here, the suppressed test showed the defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.226 percent; proof that an accused has a blood alcohol content of 0.10 percent or more makes out a prima facie case of driving under the influence of alcohol. K.S.A. 8-1005(a)(2). If the test results are admissible, the State's case is a strong one; if the test results cannot be introduced, it is substantially weakened. We conclude that we have jurisdiction, and turn to the merits.
The State argues that the physician-patient privilege does not apply in this case because (1) the defendant was not a patient, and (2) the examining doctor was not the defendant's personal physician. These arguments have no merit.
We note preliminarily that K.S.A. 8-1001, the Kansas implied consent statute, does not apply to these facts. Before the provisions of K.S.A. 8-1001 can be invoked, a person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol must be arrested and the arresting officer must ask the arrestee to submit to a blood or breath test. K.S.A. 8-1001; State v. Gordon, 219 Kan. 643, 647, 549 P.2d 886 (1976); State v. Mezins, 4 Kan.App.2d 292, 294, 605 P.2d 159, rev. denied 227 Kan. 928 (1980). Here, though the defendant certainly was in custody (he was in handcuffs and not free to go), the sheriff's officers neither arrested him nor asked him to submit to a blood test. Furthermore, the defendant did not consent to the blood test. Blood or breath tests under K.S.A. 8-1001 may only be administered if the arrestee consents.
The district court suppressed the evidence of the defendant's blood test because it found the physician-patient privilege precluded introduction of such evidence. K.S.A. 60-427 provides in part:
State v. George, 223 Kan. 507, 510, 575 P.2d 511 (1978). Before the statutory privilege may be sustained, three requirements must be met: (1) There must be a "patient" (who in this case would be the "holder of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Borchard-Ruhland, Docket No. 112436, Calendar No. 19.
...S.E.2d 306 (1992); State v. Waring, 779 S.W.2d 736 (1989); State v. Zielke, 137 Wis.2d 39, 403 N.W.2d 427 (1987); State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 697 P.2d 896 (1985); Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426 (1982); State v. Baker, 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798 4. While conceding that the implie......
-
State v. Smith
...v. Waring, 779 S.W.2d 736, 740-41 (Mo.1989); State v. Zielke, 137 Wis.2d 39, 403 N.W.2d 427, 432-33 (1987); State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 295, 697 P.2d 896 (1985); Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426, 427 (Ak.1982); State v. Baker, 184 Neb. 724, 171 N.W.2d 798, 800 As courts in other jur......
-
State v. Rains
...purposes when the defendant was not under arrest. See Nelson v. State, 650 P.2d 426, 427 (Alaska.Ct.App.1982); State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 697 P.2d 896, 898 (1985); State v. Waring, 779 S.W.2d 736, 740-41 (Mo.Ct.App.1989); Commonwealth v. Hipp, 380 Pa.Super. 345, 551 A.2d 1086, 1......
-
State v. Roper
...N.H. 599, 567 A.2d 1002, 1006 (1989) (same); Dillenbeck, 539 N.Y.S.2d at 711-12, 536 N.E.2d at 1130 n. 4 (same); State v. Pitchford, 10 Kan.App.2d 293, 697 P.2d 896, 899 (1985) (same); State v. Dress, 10 Ohio App.3d 258, 461 N.E.2d 1312, 1316 (1982) (same). But see Oxford v. Hamilton, 297 A......
-
Privileges
...attaches when the patient is subject to a blood test for intoxication at the request of a police officer; see also Kansas v. Pitchford, 697 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). Contra Hanlon v. Woodhouse, II 3 Colo. 504, 160 P.2d 998 (1945). Ragsdale v. State, 245 Ark. 296, 432 S.W.2d 11 (1968). ......
-
Specific Privileges
...attaches when the patient is subject to a blood test for intoxication at the request of a police officer; see also Kansas v. Pitchford, 697 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). Contra Hanlon v. Woodhouse, II 3 Colo. 504, 160 P.2d 998 (1945). Ragsdale v. State, 245 Ark. 296, 432 S.W.2d 11 (1968). ......
-
Privileges
...attaches when the patient is subject to a blood test for intoxication at the request of a police o൶cer; see also Kansas v. Pitchford, 697 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). Contra Hanlon v. Woodhouse, II 3 Colo. 504, 160 P.2d 998 (1945). Ragsdale v. State, 245 Ark. 296, 432 S.W.2d 11 (1968). Th......
-
Privileges
...attaches when the patient is subject to a blood test for intoxication at the request of a police o൶cer; see also Kansas v. Pitchford, 697 P.2d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). Contra Hanlon v. Woodhouse, II 3 Colo. 504, 160 P.2d 998 (1945). Ragsdale v. State, 245 Ark. 296, 432 S.W.2d 11 (1968). Th......