State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 27 December 1977 |
| Citation | 572 P.2d 669,31 Or.App. 1351 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Gary WRIGHT, whose true name is Gary Lloyd Wright, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Cannon, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
W. Benny Won, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and LEE and JOSEPH, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction of first degree manslaughter (ORS 163.118) for the slaying of Louis Knight. The conviction arose from the same incident involved in State v. Wright (31 Or.App. 1345, 572 P.2d 667 (1977)), and the facts are adequately set forth in that opinion.
Defendant raises only one assignment of error which merits discussion. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychiatrist who had been hired to examine defendant concerning his state of mind at the time he shot Knight. The testimony of the psychiatrist was limited to replying "No" when asked if the defendant had been suffering from extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the shooting. The objection to the testimony was based upon the doctor-patient privilege (ORS 44.040(1)(d) 1 and the asserted irrelevancy of the testimony.
The psychiatrist testified for the state on rebuttal. In the defendant's case he had called Charles Smith, his companion at the time of the shooting. Smith testified that just before the shooting he "was telling (defendant) to calm down and everything" and that "I was shook up too, so I I was just trying to get him to calm down and go back to my place * * * ." From this testimony and defendant's own testimony about his prior harassment by Knight and Day the jury could have inferred that defendant was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the shooting. The state, therefore, had the burden of negating extreme emotional disturbance beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Keys, 25 Or.App. 15, 18, 548 [31 Or.App. 1354] P.2d 205 (1976), and the testimony of the psychiatrist was relevant for that purpose. 2
The privilege was created and is limited by the statute. Even if defendant had gone to the psychiatrist for the purpose of treatment, the doctor-patient privilege by its terms does not apply in a criminal case. State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humphers v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon
...information obtained during treatment. Forrest v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co., 64 Or. 240, 243, 129 P. 1048 (1913); State v. Wright, 31 Or.App. 1351, 1354, 572 P.2d 669 (1977). Two statutes in Oregon have arguable relevance to a physician-patient privilege. The most obvious is OEC 504-1(2), wh......
-
State v. Suttles
...227 P. 1065, 249 P. 364 (1926).2 See, e. g., State v. Bilton, 36 Or.App. 513, 585 P.2d 50 (1978) (attorney-client); State v. Wright, 31 Or.App. 1351, 572 P.2d 669 (1977) (doctor-patient); State v. Thompson, 30 Or.App. 379, 567 P.2d 132, Rev. den. 281 Or. 1 (1977) (attorney-client); State v.......
-
State v. Wright
...This opinion concerns the conviction on Count I. The conviction on Count II is the subject of a separate appeal and opinion (31 Or.App. 1351, 572 P.2d 669 (1977) decided this The facts can be briefly stated. Defendant shot and killed Day and Knight during a confrontation on an isolated road......