The opinion
GILLETTE, J.,
dissenting.
While I agree with much of what the majority holds, I disagree on the pivotal question of the psychiatrist’s testimony. I agree with the separate dissenting opinion of Richardson, J., that that testimony was inadmissible. As to the majority’s alternative conclusions that the evidence was either cumulative or harmless, I note the following:
1. The word “cumulative” should not even arise in this case. The psychiatrist’s testimony is different and more complete than other accounts. There is nothing “cumulative” about it.
2. The majority holds that, in any event, the psychiatrist’s testimony was harmless because it may have helped defendant. 67 Or App n 8 at 646. This is akin to saying, “You can’t complain, because the fellow who tried to kill you just severely wounded you, instead.” This error was not harmless.
Defendant’s conviction should be reversed. 1
I respectfully dissent.
I decline to join in the separate dissent of Richardson, J., because I believe its treatment of the receptionist’s testimony to be wholly unwarranted and, indeed, an awful extension of the privilege involved.