Opinion ID: 1675525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the circuit judge err in denying the defense request for further mental examination?

Text: Several months prior to trial, upon motion of the defense for mental evaluation, Hill was sent to the Mississippi State Hospital in Whitfield, where the medical staff rendered an opinion that Hill was competent to stand trial. The motion for his examination did not claim he lacked the mental capacity to form a criminal intent, and was therefore not guilty because of insanity; rather, the motion was predicated on whether or not he was mentally incompetent to the extent that he could not assist his counsel and prepare for trial. Unsatisfied with the medical evaluation of the staff at Mississippi State Hospital, counsel made a motion for another examination to determine his sanity and competency to stand trial. The circuit judge overruled this motion. The circuit judge was under no obligation to locate another psychiatrist for the defense. Moreover, if there is one thing clear from this record, Hill was competent to stand trial. Or, put another way, if he were mentally incompetent to answer questions and to fully assist his counsel, it would take an extraordinarily skilled psychiatrist to detect it. Just prior to trial Hill was examined by a psychologist, who administered a test. Counsel did not offer this psychologist as a witness in either the guilt or sentencing phase of the trial. Nor was any evidence adduced from lay or expert witnesses either on the guilt or sentencing phase of Hill's competency to stand trial or his mental ability. [6] In the motion for a new trial counsel offered the psychologist as a witness, who was of the opinion that the test revealed Hill had emotional problems which were relatively great; that he was prone to make impulsive decisions, and was unable to control those impulses; that he was unable to profit by experiences he had had in life; and that he was experiencing some schizophrenic behavior at the time of testing. (R. 1252-1253). [7] He also stated no psychologist could make a determination based on a test. Finally, he was of the opinion that further testing and evaluation were needed. On this record, no error was committed in overruling the motion for a new trial based on this claim.