In People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 133, 138 N.E.2d 799, 806-07, 157 N.Y.S.2d 558 (1956) the New York Court of Appeals ruled in Decina that "the presence of the police guard, pursuant to the orders of the district attorney, in or about the doorway of the hospital room, where he could overhear the conversation between the treating physician and defendant" did not vitiate the defendant/patient's physician-patient privilege, and that the defendant was entitled to a new trial after the trial court erroneously admitted the evidence in violation of the defendant's privilege. Id. at 806-807. The Court distinguished Secrest's case from the those following the general rule permitting a third person to testify to privileged information that the third person overhears, stating, "The rule vitiating the privilege makes sense in situations where the patient is reasonably lucid and able to control access to the setting."