People v. Edney, 39 N.Y.2d 620 (1976)
When a defendant raises an insanity defense and presents psychiatric evidence to support that defense, both the physician-patient and attorney-client privileges are waived, allowing the prosecution to call psychiatric experts, including those initially consulted by the defense, to testify regarding the defendant’s sanity.
Summary
Edney was convicted of manslaughter and kidnapping after killing his former girlfriend’s daughter. His defense was insanity. The prosecution called Dr. Schwartz, a psychiatrist who initially examined Edney at the request of his attorney, to rebut the defense’s insanity claim. The New York Court of Appeals held that Edney waived both the physician-patient and attorney-client privileges by raising the insanity defense and presenting psychiatric testimony. The court reasoned that allowing the defense to selectively use psychiatric testimony would obstruct justice and that no harm accrues to the defense as the underlying facts would be revealed to the prosecution in any event.
Facts
Defendant Edney was charged with kidnapping and killing the eight-year-old daughter of his former girlfriend. The prosecution presented evidence that Edney abducted the victim, made a threatening phone call to the victim’s aunt, and was seen with the victim shortly before her death. The victim’s body was found with multiple stab wounds. Edney made incriminating statements to the police and his father. Edney testified that he consumed large amounts of alcohol and marijuana on the day of the crime and might have killed the victim but was unsure.
Procedural History
The jury found Edney guilty of manslaughter and kidnapping. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted review to determine the admissibility of Dr. Schwartz’s testimony over claims of privilege.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of a psychiatrist, who examined the defendant at the request of his attorney prior to trial, is admissible when the defendant raises an insanity defense, despite objections based on physician-patient and attorney-client privileges.
Holding
Yes, because a plea of innocence by reason of insanity constitutes a complete and effective waiver of any claim of privilege, both physician-patient and attorney-client privileges.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in People v. Al-Kanani, which held that when a defendant offers evidence tending to show insanity, a complete waiver of the physician-patient privilege is effected, allowing the prosecution to call psychiatric experts to testify regarding the defendant’s sanity. The court reasoned that the defendant, by disclosing evidence of their affliction, gives the public the full details of their case, thus waiving the privilege. Quoting People v. Bloom, the court stated that “when a secret is out it is out for all time and cannot be caught again like a bird and put back in its cage…The legislature did not intend to continue the privilege when there was no reason for its continuance and it would simply be an obstruction to public justice”.
The court rejected the defendant’s reliance on cases from other jurisdictions that excluded such testimony based on the attorney-client privilege. The court found the Al-Kanani rule more persuasive, stating that a defendant who puts their sanity in issue should not be permitted to thwart the introduction of testimony from a material witness by invoking the attorney-client privilege. The court emphasized that a defendant who seeks to introduce psychiatric testimony in support of an insanity plea may be required to disclose the underlying basis of their alleged affliction to a prosecution psychiatrist, per Matter of Lee v. County Court of Erie County. Thus, no harm accrues to the defense from seeking pretrial psychiatric advice where an insanity plea is actually entered, because the underlying factual basis will be revealed to the prosecution psychiatrist in any event.
The court clarified that an attorney can still consult a psychiatrist to obtain advice without fear of later courtroom disclosure, as the product of such a consultation is protected by the work product doctrine. However, this doctrine only protects facts and observations disclosed *by the attorney*, not other disclosed information. The court also noted that the underlying purpose of the attorney-client privilege – encouraging persons needing professional advice to disclose freely the facts – is not harmed by the admission of the psychiatrist’s testimony, as the information would be available to the prosecution in any event.