Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03010/USCOURTS-ca10-88-03010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roger A. Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FIL.ED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci,-:i.,:~ 

MAR ... 6 19 ... 0 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 88-3010 

ROGER A. JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. CR-87-214-P) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

This is an appeal from the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Oklahoma following a jury verdict 

convicting the defendant, Roger · Aaron Johnson, of causing the 

delivery of an explosive device by United States Mails and 

possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1716 and 26 U.S.C. § 586l(c). On appeal Mr. Johnson argues that 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36. 3. 

Appellate Case: 88-3010 Document: 01019966058 Date Filed: 03/06/1990 Page: 1 
the district court erred i n finding that he was competent to stand 

trial and further contends that he was denied his sixth amendment 

right to confrontation because the trial court prevented a 

specific line of cross-examination directed to the psychiatrist 

testifying for the government. 

A defendant is competent to stand trial if he "'has 

sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a 

reasonable degree of rational understanding---and [if] he has a 

rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings 

against him. 111 United States v. Smith, 521 F.2d 374, 377 (10th 

Cir. 1975)(quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)). 

Where, as here, a trial court has held a hearing and thereafter 

finds a defendant competent to stand trial, that determination is 

a finding of fact which will be overturned only if clearly 

erroneous or arbitrary. United States v. Crews, 781 F.2d 826, 833 

(10th Cir. 1986). Our review of the record reveals no error on 

the part of the trial court in its determination of Mr. Johnson's 

competency. 

The evidence at the competency hearing in this case consisted 

of the written report of two psychiatrists and one clinical 

psychologist, all of whom had evaluated Mr. Johnson at the Federal 

Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Their written report was 

supplemented by the testimony of Dr. Donna Mary Veraldi, the 

clinical psychologist. All three mental health professionals 

agreed that Mr. Johnson had the requisite understanding of the 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-3010 Document: 01019966058 Date Filed: 03/06/1990 Page: 2 
nature of the proceedings against him. Tr. Vol. I at 18, 34. The 

issue in dispute is whether Mr. Johnson had a sufficient present 

ability to consult with counsel. 

Mr. Johnson's psychiatric evaluation revealed that he is the 

victim of conversion disorder and dissociative disorder. Tr. Vol. 

I at 10 . The psychiatrist who testified at trial was of the 

opinion that Mr. Johnson is also plagued by schizophrenia. Tr. 

Vol. III at 195. The presence of some degree of mental disorder, 

however, does not necessarily mean that a person is unable to 

assist in his or her own defense. Wolf v. United States, 430 F.2d 

443, 445 (10th Cir. 1970). 

Dr. Veraldi testified at the competency hearing that she was 

concerned whether Mr. Johnson could effectively assist in his own 

defense. Tr. Vol. I at 18-19. Her two colleagues, however, 

apparently both felt otherwise. Tr. Vol. I at 36, 43. At the end 

of the questioning of Dr. Veraldi by counsel, the court itself 

examined her with respect to the basis for her opinion and weighed 

her opinion against the opinions of the two examining 

psychiatrists. The judge discussed with Dr. Veraldi a sentence 

from the evaluation report regarding Mr. Johnson'~ ability to 

assist counsel. Tr. Vol. I at 41-42. The court also heard Mr. 

Johnson testify and concluded that he "could respond to very 

specific questions if he desires to do so." Tr. Vol. I at 66. 

The trial court heard the testimony of both Dr. Veraldi and Mr. 

Johnson and availed itself of the opportunity for 

cross-examination. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we 

conclude that the finding of competency is factually supported in 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-3010 Document: 01019966058 Date Filed: 03/06/1990 Page: 3 
.. 

the record, and is not clearly erroneous or arbitrary. United 

States v. Crews, 781 F.2d at 833; LeMaire v. United States, 826 

F.2d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Mr. Johnson also contends that he was denied his sixth 

amendment right to confrontation during his lawyer's 

cross-examination of the psychiatrist testifying on behalf of the 

government at trial. Counsel for Mr. Johnson attempted to elicit 

from the psychiatrist an opinion as to whether Mr. Johnson needed 

to be institutionalized because of his schizophrenia. The court 

sustained the government's objection under Rule 403, finding this 

line of questioning to be a "backdoor way of having him affirm 

that the person is insane" and further noting that this 

questioning was confusing, prejudicial, and misleading to the 

jury. Tr. Vol. III at 215. 

The district court is allowed broad discretion in determining 

whether proffered evidence will prejudice or confuse the jury. A 

determination under Rule 403 to either admit or exclude such 

evidence will not be overturned by this court absent a showing of 

abuse of discretion. United States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 

--677 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Porter, 881 F.2d 878, 887 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 348 (1989). Our review of 

the record persuades us that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in so limiting the cross-examination of this witness. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-3010 Document: 01019966058 Date Filed: 03/06/1990 Page: 4