Case Name: Michelle Anderson, Appellant, against Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1993-10-19
Citations: 17 Va. App. 192
Docket Number: No. 0116-91-3
Parties: Michelle Anderson, Appellant, against Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Court of Appeals Courts
Volume: 17
Pages: 192–195

Head Matter:
Order
VIRGINIA:
In the Court of Appeals of Virginia on Tuesday the 19th day of October 1993.
Michelle Anderson, Appellant, against Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.
No. 0116-91-3
Before Chief Judge Moon, Judges Baker, Barrow, Benton, Coleman, Willis, Elder, Bray and Fitzpatrick.
Counsel
Mark T. Williams (Williams, Stilwell, Morrison and Grimes, on brief), for appellant.
Janet F. Rosser, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Opinion:
UPON A REHEARING EN BANC
Opinion
A panel of this Court reversed the conviction of Michelle Anderson and remanded the case for further proceedings. See Anderson v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 226, 421 S.E.2d 900 (1992). The Court stayed the mandate of that decision and granted a rehearing en banc. Id. at 231, 421 S.E.2d at 903. Upon rehearing en banc, we reverse the judgment of the trial court for the reasons stated in the opinion of the panel of this Court, 15 Va. App. 226, 421 S.E.2d 900, lift the stay of this Court's October 6, 1992 mandate, and remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with that opinion.
Fitzpatrick, J., with whom Willis, J., Elder, X, and Bray, X, join, concurring.
I concur with the decision reached in this case. However, I do not agree that the Commonwealth is prevented from suggesting to the court an expert to provide an independent evaluation pursuant to Code § 16.1-269(A)(3)(c). The issue is whether the trial judge makes a sufficient finding of independence prior to appointment to fulfill his or her obligation to appoint an "independent psychiatrist" to perform the evaluation. The record in this case shows no basis for the appointment of Dr. Centor other than the Commonwealth's suggestion. Appellant concedes that she has no right to psychological assistance of her own choosing, and such a requirement should not be read into this opinion.