Opinion ID: 1094862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Adequacy of Report of Court-Appointed Experts

Text: Cole claims he was deprived of his rights to due process and equal protection, as well as his Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights, when the state's experts ordered to evaluate him prior to trial failed to conduct an adequate evaluation into Cole's mental state and to furnish an adequate report to defense counsel. We deny the portion of the application predicated on this ground because the record reflects that Cole was afforded a constitutionally adequate evaluation, and counsel was furnished a constitutionally adequate report. Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a petition for mental examination for the purpose of determining Cole's competency to stand trial, i.e., his ability to make a defense. An order was entered by the trial court committing Cole to the Mississippi State Hospital for the purpose of determining whether or not he was psychotic. Another order was entered by the trial judge reflecting that the purpose of the mental examination was to resolve any questions of the mental capacity, including competency to stand trial ... as well as [Cole's] responsibility under the M'Naghten Rule. The letter signed and forwarded by Dr. Lancaster, a neurologist, and Helen C. Robertson, Ph.D., a psychologist, to the trial judge, defense counsel, and the district attorney reflected a unanimous conclusion that Cole was competent to stand trial and that they had seen no evidence of mental disorder which would have impaired his ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. His diagnosis is No Mental Disorder. The case relied upon by Cole, Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1984), requires the trial judge to allow expert psychiatric or psychological assistance to indigent defendants upon a threshold demonstration that sanity will be an issue or for the purpose of rebutting the State's experts regarding mental condition. Neither situation existed here. The psychologist at the state hospital performed the specific examinations ordered by the trial court which responded directly to the requests made by defense counsel. Both the examination and the report flowing in its wake were constitutionally adequate.