Court Opinion

ID: 9606476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:50:08.768276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:34.770219
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the majority opinion fails to address the question on which certiorari was granted. That question is “whether a psychiatrist-patient relationship existed under the facts of this case.” The majority takes the position that since there was admittedly no police coercion in obtaining petitioner’s confession, under Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U. S__(107 SC 515, 93 LE2d 473) (1986), the issue of privilege is immaterial.
However, in Connelly the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs only the issue of coercive state action with regard to the admissibility of confessions. The Court went on to hold that all other issues governing the admis*49sibility of confessions are to be determined under state law.
Decided February 16, 1988
Reconsideration denied March 9, 1988.
Brimberry, Kaplan, Campbell & Donaldson, George P. Donaldson III, for appellant.
Hobart M. Hind, District Attorney, Melodie B. Swartzbaugh, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
If under state law the privilege attached in the case before us, the evidence complained of should have been excluded. Absent a conclusion that the admission of this evidence was harmless, it would be necessary for this court to determine the effect of the erroneously admitted evidence on the admission of petitioner’s confession under state law.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith and. Justice Bell join in this dissent.