Opinion ID: 1226660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appointment of Second Mental Health Expert to Assist Swann

Text: Swann assigns error to the court's failure to appoint a psychiatrist as a mental health expert for further evaluation on the issue of schizophrenia and medications to further examine issues raised in the court-ordered evaluation and to assist in the presentation of mental health mitigation issues. Dr. Samenow, the mental health expert appointed by the court to assist Swann, indicated that Swann had a mental illness with aspects of schizophrenia, but that some symptoms cleared up with medication. Following Dr. Samenow's examination and diagnosis, Swann moved the court to appoint a psychiatrist at state expense for further evaluation on the issue of schizophrenia as it relates to the Defendant and medications for said disease and the effects of medications upon the Defendant. Swann contended that because Dr. Samenow was not a psychiatrist, he was not qualified to make such an evaluation. Noting the availability of Dr. Ryans, a psychiatrist at Central State Hospital who had previously treated Swann, Swann suggested his appointment. Swann assigns error to the court's refusal to appoint Dr. Ryans. Dr. Samenow did not testify that he was unable to assess the effect of medication upon patients with schizophrenia; to the contrary, he testified that Swann's medical record showed his mental condition had been successfully controlled with medication. And Dr. Ryans, testifying on behalf of Swann, agreed with Dr. Samenow's opinion that Swann's symptoms of mental illness had clear[ed] up during Dr. Ryans's prior treatments when Swann took those medications. Accordingly, although the statute authorizes the court to appoint a second mental health expert, the statute does not require such appointment, and we find no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of Swann's motion. Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 247, 372 S.E.2d 759, 764 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3261, 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989); Pruett v. Commonwealth, 232 Va. 266, 276, 351 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 931, 107 S.Ct. 3220, 96 L.Ed.2d 706 (1987). Even so, Swann contends that he was prejudiced in presenting his mitigation evidence because Dr. Ryans, who had last seen and treated him in 1985, was without benefit of a recent examination to present Swann's current status. Dr. Ryans testified that he had examined and treated Swann in Central State Hospital on at least six occasions for schizophrenia from March 1981 until June 1985. Although Dr. Ryans described schizophrenia as a lifelong disease and mentioned that Swann exhibited some characteristic symptoms, he also testified that schizophrenia can be controlled by medication. Swann suggests nothing to indicate that Dr. Ryans's testimony might have changed if he had performed a recent examination of Swann. Nor did Swann ask the court to hear Dr. Ryans in chambers to ascertain whether the lack of a current examination affected Dr. Ryans's opinion in any way. Accordingly, we find no merit in this argument.