Opinion ID: 1767503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pre-trial Hearing

Text: Just prior to trial, the Defendant asked for permission to call Dr. Steven Adams as a witness. The trial court then conducted a hearing to determine whether Dr. Adams could qualify as an expert in order to offer an opinion as to the Defendant's ability to form the required mental state for the offense. [2] Dr. Adams, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, supervised residents in training in family medicine at the university at the time but also spent approximately one-third of his time treating patients. Dr. Adams, who expressed considerable familiarity with the medical history of the Defendant, testified that the Defendant had suffered a brain injury in 1997, leaving him comatose for several days and requiring a ventilator for life support, that caused fixed deficits in his cognition, short- and long-term memory, and in the awareness of his surroundings. Dr. Adams, who had both treated the Defendant and supervised four other physicians [3] who had also provided him with medical care, testified that an electroencepholography (EEG) performed while the Defendant was in the hospital was severely abnormal. Another EEG performed after the Defendant's discharge confirmed a mild global slowing and an underlying brain disorder. In September of 2003, a computed tomography (CT) scan indicated mild changes consistent with atrophy, [or] shrinking of the brain. Having treated thousands of patients, Dr. Adams estimated that thirty percent of those under his care had mental or psychiatric issues. It was his opinion that the Defendant suffered from toxic encephalopathy, a synonym for organic brain syndrome, and was not competent to intentionally commit a crime that requires planning ahead of time simply because he has deficits in memory. Dr. Adams, who conceded that he did not specialize in the field of psychiatry and that he had never given a psychiatric opinion in a trial, testified that the Defendant did not have a psychiatric condition. It was his opinion that the Defendant instead had a brain injury, which would be classified on a different axis and which caused deficits in cognition. Dr. Adams described the deficits as static, unchanged by time and the same now as what I saw when I discharged him from the hospital [in] January of 1998. According to Dr. Adams, the Defendant also experienced seizures which had been difficult to control with medications. When asked whether the Defendant might remember back to the date of his departure from the jail, Dr. Adams answered, I can't imagine he would remember it. He explained that the Defendant's condition placed limitations on his ability to think and his understanding of the consequences. During cross-examination, Dr. Adams acknowledged the Defendant would probably have been aware that he was in jail and may have known he was walking out the door at the time he did so, but would not have understood the consequences of his actions. The State objected to the testimony, arguing that Dr. Adams was not qualified to give a psychiatric opinion as to the mental state of the Defendant. The trial court excluded the evidence, holding that the jury could not consider testimony regarding capacity on a non-specific intent crime. Afterward, the following exchange took place: THE COURT: I will deem him as an admissible expert in the area of medicine and diagnosing the particular brain disorder that the defendant has ..., so I will grant that to some extent but the other part dealing with thewhat were you just saying? [THE STATE]: The psychiatric. According to [State v.] Hall, [958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn.1997)], you have to introduce psychiatric testimony. If you were going to do it in a specific intent crime it would still have to be THE COURT: I agree. He was not admitted as a psychiatric expert.