|
In People v. Bayer (COA docket No. 281479), judges reversed a lower court ruling that Albert Bayer, a psychiatrist, wasn't guilty of third degree criminal sexual misconduct for a relationship he carried on with his patient in his office and at hotels. The trial court reversed Mr. Bayer's charge based on his reasoning that the statute he was charged under was unconstitutionally vague, since it didn't define coercion in his circumstances. He also challenged the charge because he said his relationship was consensual, so he couldn't have coerced his patient. Judge Michael Talbot wrote, in an opinion signed by Judges Karen Fort Hood and Stephen Borrello, the law covers this circumstance by requiring the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had a sexual relationship with a patient, which was "medically recognized as unethical or unacceptable." "As noted previously by this Court, it is the manipulation of the patient within the context of a medical or treatment relationship that is determinative of the presence of force or coercion," the decision said. "Contrary to defendant's argument, the presence of consent is not necessarily the factual equivalent of the absence of coercion." Finally, the judges said, because of the inherent inequality in the doctor-patient relationship, it's questionable how prepared patients are to properly consent, especially in this case, when the victim was someone with a history of mental illness.
|
Printer Friendly
Text Version
Twitter
Facebook
Yahoo
Google
Digg
reddit
Newsvine
StumbleUpon
Bookmark
Email Page
