Case 3: Simecek v. State of Wisconsin 10 N.

W 2d 161

Facts

Simecek was prosecuted for four separate counts of murder.

o The victims were Verna Petan 27, and her children George 10, Neil 6, and Sylvia
3 years old. The homicide was committed at the Petan residence.
o On the day of the murder, the defendant drove his mother and sister to attend a
court hearing and went home and subsequently visited the victims’ house.
o When the trial was not yet over, he returned home. After 3pm, a neighbor saw
the victims’ house on fire and found the victims’ body.
o On the next day, a county traffic officer, apprehended the accused when he saw
a blood spots on his shirt which was confirmed to be human blood
o Upon interrogation, the accused narrated how he killed the victims, which is
tantamount to admission. However, his mother contends that the accused must
have been insane and admitted that they have a family history of insanity and epileptic
fits.
o Dr. Kamman, a specialist in mental diseases, testified as to examining into the
Simecek family history but found no evidence of insanity on the records of the
accused. The doctor gave as his opinion that “at the time the defendant killed the
victims, he was having what we call and epileptic equivalent, an epileptic seizure
resulting in a sudden discharge of nervous energy which comes on abruptly”. In
such a seizure, “the uncontrollable desire to kill which is unmotivated so far as
any conscious motivation is concerned is almost an automatic act during part of
which he is not aware of what he was doing”. He further testified “that the
defendant was not mentally responsible when he committed the acts” and the
accused was also showing symptoms of dementia praecox. But he did not think
that the accused is insane.
o The court appointed another physician (Dr. Dawson) to examine the defendant
and report whether the defendant was at the time of the trial is insane so that he
should not be put on trial. The trial court ordered a disclosure and immediately,
Dr. Dawson disclosed the accused’s statements during the examination.

Issues
 Was there a doctor-patient relationship between Dr. Dawson and the accused?
 Was it tight for Dr. Dawson to disclose the defendant’s statements on the court
despite patient’s right to confidentiality?
Ruling
There were pleas of “not guilty because insane” but the court found the defendant sane
during the commission of the crime, but such claimed was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt and it is merely based upon the following propositions:
 That the acts of the defendant were so utterly atrocious and so gruesome
as to preclude reasonable inference that they were committed by a sane
person;

 That there was no motive for the defendant to commit the crimes;

 That the acts were committed during a temporary period of temporary

mental blackout;

 That the family history of defendant showed that he was subject to

epilepsy and insanity;

 That the competent opinion evidence is that the defendant committed the
homicides when in an epileptic seizure and was at the same time insane.
Lesson
Regarding confidentiality, at the trial the court ordered the disclosure of the defendant’s
statements to the doctor despite patient’s right to confidentiality. The statute only
prohibits disclosures of a patient made to a physician to enable the physician to serve
him professionally. The relation of physician to patient did not exist in the instant case
and the statute has no application. As to the power of the court to require the disclosure
we know of no law prohibiting it and none is cited. The evidence was properly received.