RAGSDALE v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 5357.

Attorney(S)

W. B. Howard and Jack Segars for appellant. Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen. and Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee.

Judges

PAUL WARD, Justice.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Robert Ragsdale (appellant) was convicted of negligent homicide following a car collision on April 29, 1968, near Jonesboro, Arkansas, in which Albert Passmore was killed and appellant was injured. The State's case relied solely on circumstantial evidence as no eyewitnesses testified. This appeal arises from the Craighead County Circuit Court’s judgment, which was reversed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the statute declaring communications between physician and patient privileged applies in criminal cases as well as civil cases.
Whether the blood-alcohol test results obtained for medical diagnostic and treatment purposes are admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution for negligent homicide.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 111 Ark. 554, 164 S.W. 720	Statute protecting physician-patient communications enacted as a matter of public policy.	Supported the interpretation that the privilege statute is grounded in public policy considerations.
Edwards v. State, 244 Ark. 1145, 429 S.W.2d 92	Commentary on the applicability of the physician-patient privilege statute to criminal cases.	Clarified that the Arkansas statute had been assumed to apply to criminal cases, citing analogous state cases.
State v. Betts, 384 P.2d 198 (Ore. 1963)	Statutory privilege in physician-patient communications applied to criminal trials.	Referenced as an example of jurisdictions applying the privilege in criminal cases.
State v. Sullivan, 373 P.2d 474 (Wash. 1962)	Statutory privilege in physician-patient communications applied to criminal trials.	Referenced as an example of jurisdictions applying the privilege in criminal cases.
Wimberly v. State, 217 Ark. 130, 228 S.W.2d 991 (1950)	Assumed applicability of physician-patient privilege in criminal cases.	Supported the court's conclusion that the privilege statute applies to criminal trials.
Cabe v. State, 182 Ark. 49, 30 S.W.2d 855 (1930)	Assumed applicability of physician-patient privilege in criminal cases.	Supported the court's conclusion that the privilege statute applies to criminal trials.
Burris v. State	Assumed applicability of physician-patient privilege in criminal cases.	Referenced as precedent supporting the privilege's application in criminal cases.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the circumstances under which the blood test was conducted, noting that it was performed solely for medical diagnostic and treatment purposes at the request of the appellant's physician, Dr. Ledbetter, and not at the behest of law enforcement or prosecution. Recognizing the doctor-patient relationship, the court considered the statutory privilege under Ark. Stat. Ann. 28-607 (Repl. 1962), which prohibits compelled disclosure of information acquired in the physician-patient context unless waived by the patient.

The court acknowledged that while the State conceded the privilege applies in civil cases, it argued it does not extend to criminal cases. Reviewing prior Arkansas decisions and analogous out-of-state cases, the court found no legislative limitation restricting the statute's application to civil cases. It concluded the privilege statute applies equally in criminal prosecutions, emphasizing that if the legislature intended otherwise, it should explicitly state so.

Accordingly, the court held that admitting the blood test results violated the statutory privilege, warranting reversal of the conviction.

Holding and Implications

The conviction of negligent homicide was reversed.

The court’s holding establishes that the statutory privilege protecting physician-patient communications applies in criminal cases in Arkansas. The direct effect is that evidence obtained from medical tests conducted solely for treatment or diagnostic purposes is inadmissible without waiver, even in criminal prosecutions. The opinion does not set a broader precedent beyond the specific circumstances of this case.

Show full summary ...

Robert RAGSDALE v. STATE of Arkansas

1. WITNESSES — PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS — APPLICABILITY UNDER STATUTE. — Statute declaring communications between physician and patient to be privileged held to apply to criminal cases as well as civil cases. [Ark. Stat. Ann. 28-607 (Repl. 1962).] 2. HOMICIDE — EVIDENCE — BLOOD TEST, ADMISSIBILITY OF. — In a prosecution for negligent homicide, blood test made on appellant at physician's request for diagnostic purpose of prescribing for and treating appellant's injuries held inadmissible.

PAUL WARD, Justice.

This is an appeal by Robert Ragsdale (appellant) from a conviction of negligent homicide. The pertinent background facts are not in dispute and will be briefly set out below.

On April 29, 1968 appellant, while driving across a bridge on State Highway No. 1 located about eight miles north of Jonesboro, collided with another car in which Albert Passmore was a passenger. As a result, Passmore was killed and appellant was injured.

At the trial, no eye-witness was called by either side, and the State's case was based on circumstantial evidence.

On appeal, appellant relies on four separate points. However, we find it necessary to discuss only one point, which, we think, calls for a reversal. We agree with appellant that "the trial court erred in permitting evidence of a blood-alcohol test run on appellant".

It appears undisputed that Dr. Joe Ledbetter was the only one who had a blood test made on appellant — which test showed some trace of alcohol — and that it was made for the purpose of prescribing for, and treating the injuries of, appellant. The test was actually made by Dr. Baker who stated he did so at the request of Dr. Ledbetter for diagnostic purposes, and not in compliance with the request of anyone else. Both doctors stated the test was not made at the request of Trooper Jackson or the Prosecuting Attorney.

Under the above state of the record it must be concluded that the relationship between Dr. Ledbetter and appellant was one of doctor and patient. Nevertheless, the result of the tests was introduced in evidence over repeated objections by appellant.

It is, and must be, conceded by the State that, if this was a civil action, the result of the test was a privileged communication between doctor and patient and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence. However, it is the contention of the State such rule does not apply in criminal cases. It appears that this exact issue has never been clearly decided by this Court. For reasons mentioned below, we have concluded the rule does apply, under the circumstances of this case, in criminal cases.

(a) Ark. Stat. Ann. 28-607 (Repl. 1962) which, in essence and parts pertinent here, provides that no doctor or nurse shall be compelled to disclose any information which is acquired from his patient to enable him to prescribe, provided the patient can waive this privilege. It is noted that there is nothing in the statute which limits its application to civil cases. In the case of Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 111 Ark. 554, 164 S.W. 720 it was held that the above statute was enacted as a matter of public policy.

(b) In the case of Edwards v. State, 244 Ark. 1145, 429 S.W.2d 92, this Court had occasion to comment on the application of said section 28-607 as follows:

"In some states such statutes have been construed to apply only to civil cases; other courts have held them applicable to criminal trials as well. See, for example, State v. Betts, Ore. 384 P.2d 198 (1963), and State v. Sullivan, Wash., 373 P.2d 474 (1962). In the past we have assumed, without expressly declaring, that our statute does apply to criminal cases. Wimberly v. State, 217 Ark. 130, 228 S.W.2d 991 (1950); Cabe v. State, 182 Ark. 49, 30 S.W.2d 855 (1930); Burris v. State, infra."

In view of what we have pointed out above we are holding that the statute in question applies to criminal as well as to civil cases. If that was not the intent of the legislature we prefer to let it so state.

Reversed.

FOGLEMAN, J, disqualified.

HARRIS, C.J. concurs.