Secrest v. State

In Secrest v. State, 679 A.2d 58 (Del. 1996), the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that the patient/defendant did not meaningfully acquiesce to the officer's presence in his treatment room, where the patient was disoriented and not originally aware of the officer's presence, and where he stopped speaking upon realizing an officer was present, and that, in those circumstances, the admission of the evidence, as provided both by the doctor and the officer, over an objection asserting the physician-patient privilege, constituted reversible error. Secrest, 679 A.2d at 63.