Opinion ID: 1898380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: Should the court have allowed the psychiatric examination of Alfred Carmichael to determine whether he was capable of telling the truth?

Text: Prior to Carmichael's testimony, defendant sought an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Carmichael should be disqualified as a witness. Defendant alleged that Carmichael's speech was incomprehensible and that he had some psychiatric problems. The court denied that motion, adding that if Carmichael presented any problem on the day he was to testify, the court would then hold a hearing to see if he was capable. Furthermore, defense counsel failed to renew the motion at the time of Carmichael's testimony. However, the court heard testimony from Carmichael's treating psychiatrist, who claimed that Carmichael no longer suffered from the problem of auditory hallucinations that he had experienced shortly after the shooting. Carmichael confirmed this during his own testimony. Defendant now claims that the inconsistencies between Carmichael's pretrial statement in an interview with defense counsel and his testimony at trial support the contention that Carmichael was mentally disturbed and were more than sufficient to pass the threshold test of State v. R.W., 104 N.J. 14, 514 A. 2d 1287 (1986), in which the Court held that there must be a substantial need before a psychiatric examination will be ordered to determine witness competency. The general rule is that a competent witness is a qualified witness. Evid.R. 7. The determination of whether a person is competent to serve as a witness lies within the discretion of the court. State v. R.W., supra, 104 N.J. at 19, 514 A. 2d 1287 (citing State v. Butler, 27 N.J. 560, 602, 143 A. 2d 530 (1958); State v. Gambutti, 36 N.J. Super. 219, 223, 115 A. 2d 136 (App. Div. 1955)). The New Jersey Rules of Evidence also provide similar standards for determining witness competency: A person is disqualified to be a witness if the judge finds that (a) the proposed witness is incapable of expressing himself concerning the matter so as to be understood by the judge and jury either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him, or (b) the proposed witness is incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth. [ Evid.R. 17, quoted in State v. R.W., supra, 104 N.J. at 20, 514 A. 2d 1287.] In R.W. we emphasized that the exercise of this power [to force a witness to submit to a psychiatric or psychological evaluation] is neither frequent nor common, and never lightly undertaken. 104 N.J. at 21, 514 A. 2d 1287. The grant of such an evaluation demands a substantial showing of need and justification by the party seeking the evaluation. Ibid. (quoting State v. Butler, supra, 27 N.J. at 605, 143 A. 2d 530). In R.W., we provided examples that would satisfy the substantial need criterion for requiring a psychiatric examination: [T]here must be a showing of some deviation from acceptable norms, such as an identifiable or clinical psychiatric or similar disorder, beyond the realm of those human conditions that ordinary experience would confirm as normal. Id. 104 N.J. at 22, 514 A. 2d 1287. Although auditory hallucinations may be beyond the realm of normalcy, both the witness and the psychiatrist testified that the witness was no longer bothered by that problem. Furthermore, defendant offers no real evidence indicating how Carmichael's alleged disorder would affect the witness's competence or the court's ability to assess that competence. As the Court held in R.W., absent persuasive evidence of potential incompetence, mere allegations of a disorder or unusual condition bearing upon competence do not constitute a sufficient showing to justify a psychiatric examination. Id. at 25, 514 A. 2d 1287. Thus, the court properly denied defendant's motion for a psychiatric examination. The court correctly concluded that Carmichael did not suffer from any abnormality at the time of testifying. Although we have chosen to address this issue on the merits, defendant could also be deemed to have waived this claim, as he neglected to raise it on the eve of Carmichael's testimony in time for a hearing to be held.