Opinion ID: 1090811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues raised by the state in its cross-appeal.

Text: ¶ 47. Even though we find that the circuit court committed error in both issues raised by the State, the errors were harmless because we affirm Cox's conviction and sentence. VII. Whether the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence certain medical and pharmacological records. ¶ 48. Prior to trial, Cox acquired Rowland's medical and pharmacological records by subpoena duces tecum without notice to the State or the court. The circuit court denied the State's motion to suppress. The State maintains that Cox never obtained a release from Rowland's family to obtain the privileged documents and that the records were obtained by improperly-issued subpoenae duces tecum inasmuch as no notice was given to the State. Cox used these documents to support his defense of suicide. The documents showed Rowland's medical history and that he was taking antidepressants and had gastrointestinal problems. ¶ 49. The State argues that a multi-step analysis should be used in making a determination of this issue: (1) whether the subpoenae duces tecum were improperly issued; (2) whether the records were privileged; and (3) whether the medical privilege must yield to a defendant's right to put on a defense in a criminal case. (1) Whether the subpoenae duces tecum were improperly issued. Rule 45(d)(2)(A) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a copy of a subpoena should be served upon opposing parties immediately after service of the subpoena. [5] Cox failed to serve copies of the subpoenae to the State. Furthermore, the comments to M.R.C.P. 45 provide that the trial court shall quash or modify the subpoena if it ... requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, presupposing that the trial court would have an opportunity to review the matter before the issuing party has received the documents. Here, Cox had received the records before either the State or the circuit court knew that the subpoenae had been issued. (2) Whether the documents are privileged. The medical and pharmacological records were privileged. The doctor-patient privilege applies in criminal proceedings, and the witness or victim should waive the privilege prior to the admission of such evidence. Cotton v. State, 675 So.2d 308, 312-13, 313 (Miss.1996). Furthermore, the privilege survives the death of the patient. See M.R.E. 503(c). [6] ¶ 50. Cox argues that Jo Jo was present at one of the physical examinations that Rowland underwent; and therefore, the records from that examination were not privileged. Whether the presence of a third party at a medical examination waives the privilege is an issue of first impression in Mississippi. A Colorado court held that if the patient intends for the examination to be confidential, the privilege is not waived when a third person is present for the examination. People v. Deadmond, 683 P.2d 763, 771 (Colo.1984) (Even though a patient was so loud during an examination in an emergency room that others could hear his complaints, he did not intend to waive the privilege and therefore medical records were inadmissible.) Indeed, M.R.E. 503(a)(4) provides that [a] communication is confidential if not intended to be disclosed to third persons, except persons present to further the interest of the patient in the consultation, examination, or interview, .... The notes of the physician who examined Rowland indicate that he relied upon Jo Jo in developing Rowland's medical history. Therefore, the records were confidential even though Jo Jo was present. (3) Whether the medical privilege should yield to a criminal defendant's right to present a defense. The Court of Appeals has held that a criminal defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him does not override a confidential medical privilege. Windham v. State, 800 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Miss.Ct.App.2001). There simply is no recognized principle of law by which such recognized privileges as the attorney-client privilege, the priest-penitent privilege or the privilege against self-incrimination can be ignored and the evidence compelled despite the assertion of those privileges no matter the urgency of a criminal defendant's need for the protected information. Id. at 1261-62. ¶ 51. We agree with the Court of Appeals' rationale, in general, but note that, in Windham, the defendant sought a witness' medical records for the purpose of impeaching the witness. The witness was not the victim and had not placed his medical condition at issue. With respect to Rowland, the State's own Crime Lab report indicated the presence of Citalopram (Celexa) in Rowland's urine. The relevance of the presence of an antidepressant in the victim's urine is irrefutable where Cox's defense was that Rowland committed suicide. However, allowing access to all of Rowland's medical records was error, though harmless under the circumstances. ¶ 52. Should this issue arise in the future, medical evidence pertaining to a victim may be secured and admissible in limited situations where the medical evidence is relevant, material and exculpatory. See People v. Bean, 137 Ill.2d 65, 147 Ill.Dec. 891, 560 N.E.2d 258, 268 (1990) (Medical records not material to defense inadmissible); State v. Stuck, 434 N.W.2d 43, 54 (S.D.1988) (Denial of access to privileged medical records upheld where defendant was not denied any material information, his defense was not prejudiced in any manner, and the victim's physical or mental health was not at issue). ¶ 53. Because the doctor-patient privilege should be inviolate in most circumstances, we suggest certain actions, in addition to the guidelines of U.R.C.C.C. 2.01, to be taken by trial courts to control a criminal defendant's access to privileged information. An in camera review by the court of the medical records to determine if the evidence is material, relevant and exculpatory would be appropriate. See People v. Bean, 147 Ill.Dec. 891, 560 N.E.2d at 269. If the circuit court finds that the records are admissible, the records should be redacted as much as possible to show only the evidence which is relevant and exculpatory. See id. See also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58-61, 107 S.Ct. 989, 1002-04, 94 L.Ed.2d 40, 58-60 (1987) (While a defendant has a constitutional right to all material information contained in statutorily privileged records, he had no right to review the full records himself or through his attorney; instead, the trial judge alone should review the records in camera and should then disclose only material information.). ¶ 54. Here, the proper procedure for obtaining the subpoenae duces tecum was not followed and the medical records were admitted. However, any error in admitting the records was harmless because the jury convicted Cox and did not give credence to the suicide defense. VIII. Whether the Circuit Court Erred in Allowing Cox's Expert Witness to Give Opinions on Certain Matters. ¶ 55. Mike West, D.D.S., testified on behalf of Cox as an expert witness in, inter alia, crime scene reconstruction, ballistics and blood spatter. We find the admission of his opinions harmless under the circumstances and decline the State's request that we adopt more stringent standards for the admission of expert opinions because this issue is better addressed in making modifications to the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. IX. Whether the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence a computer-generated animation. ¶ 56. The State asserts that the circuit court erred in admitting a computer-generated animation created by Dr. West and others. The animation demonstrates Dr. West's opinion as to how Rowland's alleged suicide could have occurred. Because no measurements were made at the scene, Dr. West testified that the animation was based on his study of the case, including pictures, investigative reports, the weapon, the crime scene, the vehicles, etc. The State filed a motion in limine to suppress the animation, and at the hearing thereon, Cox argued that the animation would only be used as demonstrative evidence and would not be offered into evidence. Cox also informed the circuit court that all of Dr. West's opinions, except for when he reconstructed the scene and we have this animation, comes from only the State's evidence. The circuit court ordered Cox to provide full and complete disclosure of any and all underlying data and scientific principles relating to utilize computer analysis, enhancements and animation of the proposed suicide video. The disclosure by the defendant must include but is not limited to the mathematics, physics, programming, hardware or software and any supporting documentation or studies used to create or support the animation. Cox responded that a Bill Maxwell assisted West in the generation of the animation, but, as the State notes, no further information on Maxwell was disclosed. The defendant's response failed to outline the specific, scientific data including the measurements which were used to create the animation. It merely listed various software programs without any accompanying explanation of their application and no description of hardware. Bill Maxwell was never listed as a potential defense witness. Bill Maxwell never provided any form of signed written report, and neither did any of the defendant's other expert witnesses in this case. Finally, neither Bill Maxwell, nor any [ ]other computer person, nor West, ever testified during trial as to the software or hardware actually used to make the animation. No one testified to the specific mathematical data used to manufacture this video animation prior to it being shown to the jury. ¶ 57. At a hearing on the State's motion to suppress, an FBI Visual Information Specialist Examiner testified that, because of current technologies in computer animation, it was possible to create an animation showing literally anything as real, when it was not based on any facts. Any computer animation which was not based on actual, physical measurements from the crime scene was mere speculation. Other jurisdictions have addressed this issue and found, inter alia, that the animation must be based on scientific, identifiable, and objective facts. See, e.g., Pierce v. State, 718 So.2d 806 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1997) (The foundation for admission of a computer-generated animation must include specific physical measurements from the scene and testimony as to what software, process and data were used.); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 529 S.E.2d 528 (2000) (A computer-generated animation is admissible as demonstrative evidence when the proponent shows that the animation is authentic, relevant, a fair and accurate representation of the evidence to which it relates; and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.); State v. Farner, 66 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn.2001) (To be admissible, a computer-generated animation must be relevant and fair and accurate, and its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect.). We agree. X. Whether the Computer Animation Should Have Been Given to the Jury for Consideration During their Deliberations. ¶ 58. Cox argues that the animation was nothing more than demonstrative evidence which helped to explain his testimony. Demonstrative evidence is admissible if it is necessary and relevant to a fact at issue. Murriel v. State, 515 So.2d 952, 956 (Miss.1987). Substantive evidence is evidence which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Marcum v. Miss. Valley Gas Co., 587 So.2d 223, 225 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 59. The State urges us to adopt the rationale of other jurisdictions where the courts have held that evidence which is admitted for demonstrative purposes only should not be received in evidence and should not be available to the jury for use during deliberations. See U.R.C.C.C. 3.10 (The court shall permit the jury, upon retiring for deliberation, to take to the jury room the instructions and exhibits and writings which have been received in evidence.). In the case sub judice, even though Cox argues that it was only used as demonstrative evidence, the animation was admitted as an exhibit and was included in the evidence which was given to the jury to consider during its deliberations. We agree with the State's argument and find that evidence which is admitted for demonstrative purposes only should not be given to the jury for its consideration during deliberations. ¶ 60. Any error committed by the circuit court in admitting the animation and allowing the jury to consider the animation during deliberations. Furthermore, any error was harmless because Cox was convicted was harmless. However, the law pertaining to computer animations and demonstrative evidence announced today will be prospectively applied in both criminal and civil cases.