A three-judge panel of State Superior Court has reversed Judge William Martin’s denial of evidence that could be used against Charles Cook, the drifter accused of murdering 76-year-old Myrtle McGill in 1991 at her home along South 6th Street in Indiana.
Cook was identified as a suspect in McGill’s shooting in 2007 and finally located and arrested in Minnesota in 2016. It was after that arrest that he made statements that then-Indiana County District Attorney Pat Dougherty wanted to use at trial, but Judge Martin ruled them inadmissible.
In their decision, Superior Court wrote that when Cook’s statements were made in a mental health treatment center library, they were “in a private conversation to a fellow patient, during recreational time in a library, and outside of any therapy session. The fellow patient was not a member of Cook’s treatment team, Cook’s statements to this patient were not “confidential” communications…(and) were not made ‘in the course of treatment.’” Cook told the patient that he was “on the run back in 1991” and he “killed someone”. Those remarks were overheard by Security Counselor Jeffrey Brunz, who wrote them down and reported them to Cook’s treatment team.
The conclusion authored by Superior Court Judge Judith Ference Olson is that “…we respectfully vacate the portion of the trial court’s March 7, 2019 order that excluded from evidence the patient record and testimony concerning the statements Cook made while he was a patient…”
The case has been remanded back to Indiana County Court, where it’s anticipated that it will be placed back on track for Cook’s trial. He’s charged with criminal homicide and robbery.
FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT RULING (APRIL 7):
“In the case at bar, Cook made his statements in a private conversation to a fellow patient, during recreational time in a library, and outside of any therapy session. The fellow patient was not a member of Cook’s treatment team, Cook’s statements to this patient were not “confidential” communications between Cook and a member of his treatment team, and Cook’s statements were not made “in the course of treatment.” Instead, Cook’s statements were made during a private conversation between Cook and a third-party, which were overheard by Security Counselor Brunz and then recorded, by Security Counselor Brunz, in his notes.
Put simply, since Cook did not make his statements to a member of his treatment team, since Cook’s statements were not confidential, and since Cook’s statements were not made “in the course of treatment,” Cook’s statements are not protected under the psychotherapist-client privilege. As
such, we respectfully vacate the portion of the trial court’s March 7, 2019 order that excluded from evidence the patient record and testimony concerning the statements Cook made while he was a patient at Saint Peter’s Regional Treatment Center.
Order vacated in part. Case remanded.”
Comments