stating that “the host’s driving prior to the time and place of the accident has been considered relevant upon the issue of what was the host’s state of mind at the time of the accident”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the host’s driving prior to the time and place of the accident has been considered relevant upon the issue of what was the host’s state of mind at the time of the accident”
- commenting on a criminal defendant’s constitu- tional right not to testify
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PERRY, J.,
specially concurring.
I am unable to agree with the majority that under the statutory law of this state information obtained by a physician in the treatment of a patient is privileged only in civil matters and has no application to criminal cases. In my mind there is no ambiguity in the statutes such as seems to exist in the minds of the majority. I would follow the interpretation placed upon similar statutes by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, that the statute applies in both situations. State v. Sullivan, 60 Wash2d 214, 373 P2d 474 ; State v. Miller, 105 Wash 475, 178 P 459 . However, I concur in the result reached by the majority.
The evidence of the physician was merely cumulative and did not constitute prejudicial error. Also, the information obtained by the physician was such as could have been obtained and in fact was obtained by laymen. It was therefore not of a confidential nature as contemplated by the statute.