Opinion ID: 2514103
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Psychiatric Evaluation at State Expense

Text: Once the issue of competency is raised, a trial court must undertake a two-step procedure involving first a preliminary finding and then a final determination as to the competency of the defendant. § 16-8-111, 6 C.R.S. (2000); Jones, 617 P.2d at 806. If a trial court feels that the information available to it is inadequate for making a preliminary finding, it may order a competency examination or such other investigation as it deems advisable. § 16-8-111(1); Jones, 617 P.2d at 806. A court may order another competency examination prior to a competency hearing if adequate psychiatric information is not already available. [9] § 16-8-111(2). Finally, under section 16-8-106(1), 6 C.R.S. (2000), a court may order additional examinations upon a showing of good cause. Section 16-8-108, 6 C.R.S. (2000) provides that a defendant may be examined by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other expert of his own choice upon filing a timely motion with the court. Furthermore, under section 16-8-119, 6 C.R.S. (2000), an indigent defendant may be appointed any physicians, psychologists, or attorneys to which he is entitled at the state's expense. Defendant argues that these sections should be construed in conjunction with the provision in section 16-8-106(1) stating that [n]othing in this section shall abridge the right of the defendant to procure a psychiatric examination as provided in section 16-8-108, to mean that he is entitled to a second psychiatric examination by an expert of his choosing at the state's expense. We disagree. We have previously held that section 16-8-108 does not guarantee that the expert selected by an indigent defendant will in all cases be provided without cost to him. Massey v. Dist. Court, 180 Colo. 359, 363, 506 P.2d 128, 130 (1973) (construing predecessor statutes to sections 16-8-108 and 16-8-119). We have also held that, Under the provisions of Section 119, an indigent defendant is given the right to have the state pay for those experts to which he is entitled under law, but not to have the state pay for a particular expert which he might select or desire. Id. We therefore conclude that while a defendant is entitled to an examination by an expert of his choosing, the state is not obligated to pay for such an expert. Moreover, a paying defendant wishing to exercise his right to second competency evaluation by an expert of his own choosing must nonetheless make a showing of good cause under section 16-8-106. We therefore disagree with the court of appeals' determination that Defendant was entitled to a second examination at the state's expense. Moreover, we find that Defendant made no showing of good cause entitling him to a second competency evaluation, even at his own expense. As discussed above, the record supports the trial court's determination that Defendant was competent to stand trial. Thus, Defendant's argument that the psychiatrist applied the incorrect legal standard in concluding that he was competent lacks merit. [10] Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment directing the trial court to grant Defendant's request for a second competency evaluation pursuant to section 16-8-108, and reinstate Defendant's judgment of conviction.