Opinion ID: 2212618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: petition for mental examination of witness

Text: The second issue is whether the trial court erred in denying the following sworn pre-trial petition: Come now the defendants and show the Court: 1. The co-defendant in this cause is Ronald Schoolcraft whom the defendants are informed and verily believe will be a prosecuting witness against them. 2. Said Ronald Schoolcraft is also prosecuting witness in numerous other criminal cases pending in this Court, in Hendricks County, and otherwise. 3. That said Ronald Schoolcraft has been indicted for the use of narcotics in the past. 4. That said Ronald Schoolcraft has had a history of mental disturbances, including at least one arrest on a premental condition as the defendants were informed and verily believe. 5. Defendants believe that the said Ronald Schoolcraft is a psychopathic liar and that he should be examined by Court appointed psychiatrists and the reports of his examinations be made available to their counsel. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the defendant Ronald Schoolcraft be examined by a psychiatrist, that the reports of their examinations be made available to their counsel and for all other proper relief. In their supporting memorandum appellants state more specifically the purpose of the examination: First, the defendant, Dickie Codalata would show the Court that Ronald Schoolcraft is a co-defendant in this case and subject to a suggestion of incompetency.    THEREFORE, the defendant again urges that the Court order Ronald Schoolcraft to be examined as to his competency.  (Emphasis added.) The appellants' sworn petition, uncontraverted in any way by the appellee, was overruled by the trial court without any indication of the basis for his decision. In the absence of the petition the witness Schoolcraft apparently would have been a competent witness under Ind. Acts 1905, ch. 169, § 235, Burns' § 9-1603: Who are competent witnesses.  The following persons are competent witnesses:    Third. Accomplices, when they consent to testify. However, the appellants with their petition raised the issue of the applicability of Ind. Acts 1881 (Spec. Sess.), ch. 38, § 275, Burns' § 2-1714: Who are incompetent.  The following persons shall not be competent witnesses: First. Persons insane at the time they are offered as witnesses, whether they have been so adjudged or not. When the witness' competency was challenged under the statute it became the duty of the trial court to determine whether the witness was competent to testify. As this Court said in Wedmore v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E.2d 649: In this case if timely objection to the competency of the prosecuting witness had been made, it would have been the duty of the court to make such an examination as would satisfy it as to her competency or incompetency. 58 Am. Jur. Witnesses § 134. 237 Ind. at 223. See also Grecco v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 584, 167 N.E.2d 714; Carpenter v. Dame (1858), 10 Ind. 125. Due to the nature of the objection to the witness' competency in this case, an examination which would satisfy the trial court as to his competency would necessarily include an examination of the witness by a psychiatrist. Without such an examination the trial court would have no sound basis for an informed determination as to the witness' alleged incompetency to be a witness due to insanity. We, therefore, hold that it was error for the trial court to deny appellants' petition for a mental examination of the witness in the absence of a showing by appellee of a paramount interest in denying the petition. Of course, the trial courts has the inherent power to issue a protective order to prevent a defendant from merely delaying the proceedings or harassing the witness. Judgment of trial court is reversed and the trial court is ordered to grant appellants' motion for new trial. Hunter, C.J., concurs; Givan, J., concurs with separate opinion in which Arterburn, J., concurs; Jackson, J., concurs in result.