Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Miller

State v. Miller, 67 Or. App. 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Date: 1984-04-11
Topic: general

*650BUTTLER, J., specially concurring. Although I agree with Richardson, J., that defendant’s statements to Dr. Saville were privileged communications within the meaning of OEC 504 and should have been excluded, I agree with the majority that, in the peculiar context of this case, the error was harmless. Accordingly, I concur in the affirmance of defendant’s conviction. Young, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Miller. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

*650 BUTTLER, J.,

specially concurring.

Although I agree with Richardson, J., that defendant’s statements to Dr. Saville were privileged communications within the meaning of OEC 504 and should have been excluded, I agree with the majority that, in the peculiar context of this case, the error was harmless. Accordingly, I concur in the affirmance of defendant’s conviction.

Young, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.