People v. Sexton
2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 239
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted by jury of possession of eight ounces or more of marijuana.
- Officers observed a marijuana grow on defendant's property during a Pueblo County aerial eradication program.
- A garden certificate for a medical marijuana grow operation was found; it lacked complete/legible information.
- Defendant presented a medical-use defense and produced evidence of registry and extended-plant-count recommendations.
- Trial court excluded physician testimony as privileged, then allowed rebuttal testimony after defendant raised medical-necessity defense.
- Court held that waiver of doctor-patient confidentiality was governed by section 18-90-107, not section 18-18-406.3(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute governs waiver of doctor-patient confidentiality? | Sexton argued 18-18-406.3(5) requires written waiver. | Sexton argued 18-90-107(1)(d) governs waiver regardless of written waiver. | Section 18-90-107 controls; no written waiver required. |
| Is there a conflict between statutes, and how should it be resolved? | Dual protections create potential conflict between confidentiality and registry rules. | Protections may be harmonized to prevent absurd results. | No conflict; statutes serve different purposes and can be harmonized. |
| Did defendant validly waive privilege by raising medical-use defense? | Affirmative defense raises waiver under 13-90-107(1)(d). | Waiver requires written document under 18-18-406.8(5). | Waiver valid under 13-90-107(1)(d); 18-18-406.3(5) writing requirement does not apply. |
| Was the physician's rebuttal testimony properly admitted? | Testimony rebutted defendant's medical-use defense after waiver. | Privilege precluded testimony absent written waiver. | Admissible; proper waiver and disclosure under statute. |
| Did trial court errs concerning evidence and acquittal standards? | Mid-trial acquittal standards require sufficient evidence for medical-necessity defense. | Trial court erred in rulings on acquittal motions and witness testimony. | No reversible error; acquittal decisions and testimony rulings were proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076 (Colo. 2009) (doctor-patient privilege scope; no written waiver required)
- Cardenas v. Jerath, 180 P.3d 415 (Colo. 2008) (scope of doctor-patient confidentiality)
- Haortmann v. Nordin, 147 P.3d 48 (Colo. 2006) (confidentiality protections in physician-patient relations)
- Alcon v. Spicer, 113 P.3d 785 (Colo. 2005) (confidentiality; protective purpose of statute)
- Gutierres, 222 P.3d 925 (Colo. 2009) (probable cause; weighing expert experience)
- Pacheco, 175 P.3d 91 (Colo. 2006) (medical-use defenses and evidentiary limits)
- Benavides, 222 P.3d 891 (Colo. App. 2009) (interpretation of medical-use defense and evidentiary scope)