### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 12, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. BR AD LEY FE RR ELL

Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Van Bu ren County No. 1688-M Larry B. Stanley, Jr., Judge

No. M2005- 02552-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 24, 2007

D. K EL L Y T HOMAS , J R ., J

. , d i s s en t i n g.

The majority

in this case conclude s that defe ndant is not entitl ed to re lief base d on the trial

c ourt ’s ru lin g s r e g a rd ingthe de fe nd a nt’ s p ro po se d e x pert , Dr . St e ph e n A dams. As the ma jor ity states, the trial c ourt ruled that Dr . Adams wa s qualified to gi v e ex p er t testimony reg ardingthe de fe nd ant’ s b ra in i nju

ri es; howe ve r, in r

uli ngthat D r. Ad a ms w a s n ot q ua lif ie d a s a ps y c hiatr ic expert, the trial cour

t stated that “[t] he cour

t does not pref

er to he ar testimony reg arding capa city on a non-spe cific intent crime.” In my view, this ruling pr evente d the Dr. A dams from pre senting any te sti mony tha t th e de fe nd a nt l a c ke d th e c a pa c ity to f or m th e requisit e me nta l st a te fo r t he of fe ns e with wh i ch h e was charg ed. As a result, the def

endant wa s preve nted from pr esenting the key

e le me nt o f h is d e fe ns e , a nd the ru lin g c le a rl y

pr e jud ic e d th e de fe nd a nt. Th e re for e, I mus t

re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.

I

The trial r ecor d shows that the testimony prese nted to the jury proved be y ond question that the def endant, while being held in the Van Bur en County J ail on a misdemea

nor assa ult sentence
, le ft the c on fi ne s o f t

he ja il i n th e c omp any

of a c e llm a te , Jam e s E . M c Cor mic k, wi tho ut a

uth or ity to do so. The only element of the offe nse that was ope n to question was that re quiring proof that the defe ndant ac ted i ntentionally
, knowing ly , or re cklessly . I t is ag ainst that backdr op that the issue of disallowing e x pert medic al testimony must be analy

zed.

Our appellate courts have “conc luded that a defe ndant’s ca pacity to form the re quisite mental state to co mmi t an o ff

e ns e is a n is su e in c ri min a l pr os e c uti on s b e c a us e the g e ne ra l c ri min a l la w i n Tenne ssee pr ovides that ‘[n] o person may be convicted of a n offe nse unless . . . [t] he culpa ble mental state re quired is prove n bey ond a re asonable do u b t .’” State v. H all, 958 S.W .2d 679, 689 (Tenn. 19 97 ) ( int e rn a l c ita

tio n o mit te d)

. F ur

the rm or e , “ the ne g a tio n of a n e le me nt of a c ri min a l of fe ns e is

rec og nized as a def

ense in Te nnessee .” I d. (citation omitted). I n Hall, our supre me cour t held that psy chiatric evidenc e that the defe ndant lacke d the capa city to f orm the requisite mental state for an-2-

offe nse

must s at isfy

the g ener al re levanc y

standards a s well as the e videntiary rules which specific ally

g overn e x pert testimony . As s u m i n g that those standar ds are satisfied, ps y c hiatr ic e vid e nc e that the de fe nd a nt la c ks the c a pa c ity , be c a

us e of me nta l di se a se
or def e c t, t o f or m th e re qu isi te me nta l st a te to c omm it the of fe ns e c ha rg e d is admissible under Te nnessee law.”

I d. Th e su

pr e me c ourt

the n c ite d to a n o pin ion

by thi s c ourt th at for ms a su bs tanti a l ba sis fo r m y conclusion her e:

To fi nd oth e rw ise wo uld

de pr ive a c ri min a l de fe nd a nt of

the ri g ht t o d e fe nd

a g a ins t one of the essential ele ments of eve ry criminal ca se. In eff

ect, then, such a f

inding would deprive the def

endant of the means to c halleng e an aspec t of the prosec ution’s

case and re move the burde n of proof on that element i n contravention of

c on sti tut ion a l and

statut or y law. Whil e the law pr e su me s san ity it d oe s n ot p re su me
mens rea . Due pr o ce ss require s that the g overnme nt prove e very element of

an of fe ns e be y on d a

re a so na ble do ub t.
State v. Phipps, 883 S .W.2d 138, 149 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).

As the st ate arg ued at trial, the s upreme court’s holding in Hall ref ers to psy chiatric evidenc e. Ho we ve r, the Ha ll c ourt a lso re c og nize d th a t “ e xpe rt te sti mony

re le va nt t o n e gati ng inte nt i s admissible in Tennes s ee e ven thoug h diminis hed ca pacity is not a defe nse.” H all, 958 S.W .2d at 6 9 1

. T h er ef

o re , I fi n d n o go o d re as o n wh y t h e ru l e t h at ad dre s s es p s y ch i at ri c ev i d en ce re gar d i n g a de fe nd ant’ s la c k of ca

pa c ity to fo rm a re qu isi te me nta l sta te c a nn ot be e xten de d to med ic a l e xpe rt s. I f the testimony

satisfies both the g ene ra l rele vancy require ments and those provisions of the Te nn e sse e Rul e s of E vid e nc e a dd re ssi nge xpe rt

te sti mony , e xpe rt

te sti mony

e sta bli sh ingthat a defe ndant’s lac k of ca

pacity to form the re quired menta l state results from a n org anic c ondition such as a br ain injury

should be admissible in criminal case s.

II

I n th is c a se , the re le va

nc y a nd e xpe rt te sti mony sta nd a rd s r e qu ir e d b y

Ha ll w e re c le a rl y

me t. D r

. A d a m s w a s a c c e p t e d

a s a m e d i c a l e x p e rt b y t h e t r i a l c o u rt i n t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f h i s t e s t i m o n y, he had pr actice d internal medic ine for e ight y ear s and had se rved a s an assoc iate prof essor in the Depa rtment of F amily

Medicine at the University of Tenne ssee Chattanoog a, wher e he ha d taug ht for se ven y ear s. Dr. Ada ms testifi ed that he had f irst treate d the def

endant whe n he ente red the Er lang e r H os pit a l e me rg e nc y ro om in De c e mbe r 19 97 in “ status e pil e pti c ,” that is, in a c on sta nt s ta te of uncontrollable seizure. Dr. Adams and residents under his dire ction had t re at ed t h e d efe ndant continuously

in the s even and a half y ear s betwee n the defendant’s admission to the hos pital and the da t e t h e t r i a l b e g a n

. D r

. A d a m s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t d o e s n o t s u f

f e r f r o m a ps y c hia tr ic condition but rather f

rom an orga

nic brain sy

ndrome known a s tox ic enc ephalopathy . The phy sician-3-

g ave e x tensive testimony reg ardingthe spec ific n at u re o f the def endant’ s brain injuries and the results of these injuries: “def icits in cog nition, deficits in short- term memory , defic its in l ong -term

m em o ry , d ef

i ci t s i n aw ar en es s o f h i s s u rr o u n d i n gs

. T h o s e d ef i ci t s ar e f i x ed

. T h ey

d o n o tch an ge with time

. . . and they rema in the s ame now as what I saw whe n Idischarg ed him from the hospital [i n] J anuar

y of 1998.” D r. Adams further te stified that h e b el i ev ed t hat the def endant wa s not “compe tent to intentionally commit a crime that require s planning ahea d of time simply beca use he has def icits in memory .” W hen asked if the defendant could follow someone out the door a nd not

rea liz e that he would be intentionally or knowing ly brea king out of jail, the doctor r ep l i ed that defe ndant “would not . . . know the f ull consequenc es of that a ction. Idon’t think there is any way he could.” Given this evidenc e, Dr . Adams wa s qualified to g ive test i m o n y re g ardingthe defe ndant’s inability

to form the re quisite mental state and should have been a ffor ded that opportunity

.

CONCL USI ON

I n my view, the tria l c ourt’s ruling that Dr. Adams could not testify reg ardingthe def

endant’ s capa city (or lack t h er eof) to form the re quisite mental state for the char g ed off ense de nied the de fe nd ant t

he a bil ity to p re se nt a de fens e. T he tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld h a ve pe rm itt e d th e de fe nd a nt t o prese nt medical evide nce r eg ardingan org anic br ain injury and the r elation of that brain injury to the de fe nd ant’ s c a

pa c ity to fo rm the re qu isi te me nta l st a te . T he jur y c ou ld h a ve the n d e c ide d if the state p r o v e d b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n ta c t e d

i n t e n t i o n a l l y, kn o w i n g l y, o r r e c k l e s s l y. Iwould reve rse the jur

y verdic t and re mand this case f or a ne w trial.

_____________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ D. KEL L Y THOMAS, JR ., J UDGE