State VS. Stark

State vs. Stark

State VS. Stark. The case involved the state (Clallam County Health Department) and Calvin Stark. Stark was charged with two counts of second-degree assault for purposefully exposing his sexual partners to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The facts brought before the court stated that on 25th March, 1988, stark tested positive for HIV and this test was further confirmed by another test on 30th June, 1988.the staff of the Clallam county Health department held five meeting with Stark on which they introduced him to safe sex and the need to inform his partners of his HIV status before having sex. State VS. Stark.

Pay to Unlock the Answer!

As a result the confidentiality of Starks HIV status did not hold so long there was clear evidence to prove that protecting this confidentiality posed an imminent danger to public health. State VS. STtark.

The court also established that when the case before the court is of criminal nature, little regard will be paid to confidentiality rule. State VS. Stark. In establishing when confidential information can be disseminated, the court relied on Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, Wn, 640 (1982) which established that “Criminal trials are public unless there is a compelling reason to close them”. The court established that though, RCW 70.24 protects privacy, this privacy can be withdrawn if the beneficially acts irresponsibly in manner to infect those uninfected. State VS. Stark.

List of References

Samaha, J. (2010) Criminal law. New York: Cengange Learning, 23-67.

Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa‘, 9,7 Wn.2d 30, 640. P.2d 716 (1982)

State vs. Stark, 832 P.2d 109 (Wash. App. 1992)