Court Opinion

ID: 9584518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:49:16.988284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:08.978389
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
concurring.
I fear that the precision with which Division 2 of the majority opinion has been written may be overlooked and that henceforth court-appointed psychiatrists will be examined by the state as to confessions given by the person examined (the accused "patient”). The majority opinion holds such testimony admissible only as against the psychiatrist-patient privilege; it does not hold such testimony admissible against the objections that the confession was not shown to be voluntary and that the Miranda warning was not given. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (84 SC 1774, 12 LE2d 908) (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966).