State v. Berry
324 So.2d 822 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant who raises an insanity defense impliedly waives the physician-patient privilege as to medical evidence relevant to their mental condition. The clergyman-penitent privilege does not apply to a communication made primarily for a secular purpose rather than for spiritual advice or consolation.
Facts:
- Stephen Berry killed Jo Ellen Smith in April 1973.
- On the evening of the murder, Berry went to an apartment occupied by a minister, the minister's sister, and a female friend.
- Berry asked to speak to the minister and told him that he had acquired a watch from a girl he had killed.
- Berry stated that he needed $8.00 or else he might hurt someone else.
- The minister gave Berry $8.00 and took the watch, which he later turned over to the police.
- Berry had a history of psychiatric examinations, with resulting medical records at the parish prison and Charity Hospital.
- Following his arrest, the coroner conducted a physical examination of Berry.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana prosecuted Stephen Berry for murder in a state trial court.
- Berry entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
- A jury found Berry guilty of murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor.
- Berry, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, with the State of Louisiana as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity impliedly waive the physician-patient privilege with respect to medical evidence relevant to their mental condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Tate, J.
Yes. By tendering his mental condition to the jury as an affirmative defense, a defendant impliedly waives his right to claim the physician-patient privilege as to medical evidence relevant to the determination of that issue. Analogizing to civil personal injury cases where a plaintiff waives the privilege by putting their condition at issue, the court found that a defendant cannot offer evidence favorable to his insanity plea while simultaneously using the privilege to withhold unfavorable evidence from the jury's consideration. This implied waiver is narrowly construed to apply only to relevant information where its probative value on the issue of insanity outweighs its prejudicial effect. Therefore, the testimony of psychiatrists who reviewed Berry's prior medical records or had previously examined him was admissible. The court also held that the clergyman-penitent privilege did not apply because Berry's communication was primarily to pawn a watch, not to seek spiritual advice, and was made in the presence of others, negating confidentiality. Finally, the court reaffirmed that Louisiana's adherence to the M'Naghten test for insanity and placing the burden of proving insanity on the defendant are legislative choices that do not violate constitutional guarantees.
Analysis:
This case establishes the significant doctrine of implied waiver of the physician-patient privilege in Louisiana criminal law when a defendant affirmatively places their mental state at issue with an insanity plea. This prevents the privilege from being used as both a sword and a shield, ensuring the fact-finder has access to all relevant evidence on the central issue of the defendant's sanity. The decision aligns Louisiana with other jurisdictions that recognize this exception to testimonial privileges. It also reinforces the judiciary's deference to the legislature in defining the substantive standards and procedural burdens for the insanity defense.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Berry