State v. Miller

624 P.2d 1100, 51 Or. App. 285, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2502
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Miller. Read the opinion of the Court — 45 Or. App. 407
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided March 16, 1981·No. No. M-80-7-14, CA 18719·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment proceeding, the trial court admitted, over defendant’s objections, the testimony of defendant’s treating physician and the investigation report prepared by that physician. The information obtained by defendant’s treating physician in attending defendant is privileged. ORS 44.040(d). The privilege applies to commitment proceedings. State v. O’Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976).

Accordingly, it was error to have admitted the testimony and report, and, as the state concedes, without that evidence, "there isn’t much left.” We agree.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Miller, 624 P.2d 1100, 51 Or. App. 285, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2502 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

624 P.2d 1100 (State v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

O'Neill v. O'Neill
545 P.2d 97 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1976)