Opinion ID: 1279175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The State's Response to The Defendant's Offer of Proof

Text: In response to the offer of proof (which included the transfer proceeding), the State argued that the psychiatric testimony should not be received for these following reasons: (a) There had been no plea of mental illness or deficiency under § 7-11-304, W.S. 1977; (b) The testimony would be hearsay in view of the fact that it is the evaluation of a psychiatrist who interviewed in preparation for trial and is not the treating physician who is testifying; (c) The proffered testimony is irrelevant to the issues before the court because the defendant is actually urging diminished capacity which is not recognized in Wyoming and there has been no plea of insanity; (d) Based on his prior testimony at the transfer hearing, the doctor could not testify to a mental deficiency or disorder even if the plea was insanity, since he did not establish his evaluation as being based upon a recognized standard; (e) The jury is able to determine intent and should not be aided in this process by a psychiatrist according to our holding in Smith v. State, Wyo., 564 P.2d 1194 (1977), for the reason that such testimony would invade the province of the jury.