Opinion ID: 1210535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: consideration of dr. gregory's report and testimony influenced the district court in its determination of aggravating factors.

Text: Prior to sentencing Wood, the district judge ordered a presentence investigation pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 32. The Rule states that [t]he presentence investigator may recommend a psychological evaluation, but the decision as to whether to order a psychological evaluation is to be made by the sentencing judge. I.C.R. 32(d). The scope of this rule when the court makes the determination that a psychological report is warranted and orders one for inclusion in the presentence report is not in issue in this case. Dr. Gregory had already been retained pursuant to the defense's request and order of the district court to assist the defense. If a psychiatrist or psychologist had been appointed by the court for purposes of a presentence investigation, counsel for Wood would have had the opportunity to advise his client of the possible uses of the information and of the privilege against self-incrimination. In the context in which this report was prepared, Wood and his attorney were deprived of this opportunity. Wood gave information on the basis that Dr. Gregory was his psychiatrist to assist him in his defense. Idaho Rule of Evidence 503 provides: Criminal action. A patient has a privilege in a criminal action to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, among the patient, the patient's psychotherapist, and persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist, including members of the patient's family.