Opinion ID: 1778569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's request for psychiatric evaluation?

Text: ¶ 14. Woodward also moved pre-trial for funds with which to be examined by Dr. John Ritter, a psychiatrist. Dr. Clarence Thurman, the clinical psychologist who had extensively evaluated Woodward in 1986 and 1994, filed an affidavit supporting Woodward's request for evaluation by a forensic psychiatrist. According to Dr. Thurman: Given the severity of Mr. Woodward's emotional problems, I believe that his request for examination and assistance by a forensic psychiatrist is reasonably necessary to his defense. Such an examination would complement my own interviews and testing of Mr. Woodward and provide a different perspective regarding his emotional problems. I believe such further examination by a medically licensed psychiatrist would not be cumulative and would contribute substantially and significantly to Mr. Woodward's defense. ¶ 15. The trial judge granted in part and denied in part Woodward's motion for psychiatric evaluation as follows: IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the defendant be allowed evaluation at Mississippi State Hospital if he so desires psychiatric examination, and to continue to have at his disposal Dr. Clarence Therman [sic], who has previously examined the defendant, as well as testified in connection with this matter for the defendant's behalf, and to allow the defendant additional funds to continue any examination and treatment of the defendant by Dr. Clarence Therman [sic], and the portion of the Motion requesting additional psychiatric expertise is overruled. ¶ 16. Thus, the trial judge granted Woodward the opportunity for psychiatric evaluation at Whitfield State Hospital, but denied him the opportunity to be examined by his psychiatrist of choice. Woodward argues that the opportunity to be examined by State psychiatrists was not adequate. He claims that he was prejudiced by being denied access to a medical expert to corroborate and enhance Dr. Thurman's testimony, because such corroboration would have been highly relevant to the mitigation evidence in this case. In support of his argument, Woodward cites Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). ¶ 17. In Ake, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge is required to allow expert psychiatric or psychological assistance to indigent defendants upon a threshold demonstration that sanity will be an issue or for the purpose of rebutting the State's experts regarding mental condition. Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 781 (Miss.1995) (citing Ake, 470 U.S. at 83, 105 S.Ct. at 1096). In the case sub judice, the State did not present expert evidence of Woodward's mental condition in its case-in-chief. However, Woodward presented Dr. Thurman's expert psychological testimony in mitigation. Therefore, Woodward's mental condition did appear to be an issue in the case, such that Ake would apply. ¶ 18. Nonetheless, even the Ake Court acknowledged that a criminal defendant is not entitled to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. Ake, 470 U.S. at 83, 105 S.Ct. at 1096. Rather, the Court's concern was that the indigent defendant have access to a competent psychiatrist. Id. ¶ 19. Thus, the question is, whether the order allowing Woodward to be examined at the Whitfield State Hospital met the requirements of Ake. This Court has repeatedly held that, where the defendant was evaluated by psychiatrist(s) from the Whitfield State Hospital, the examination satisfied `the constitutional mandate of [ Ake v. Oklahoma ].' Butler v. State, 608 So.2d 314, 321 (Miss. 1992) (quoting Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 671 (Miss.1991)); Cole, 666 So.2d at 781; Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 480-81 (Miss. 1988). The analysis is no different in this case, even though Woodward did not avail himself of the examination allowed by the trial court. ¶ 20. Therefore, the trial judge's decision to allow Woodward to undergo psychiatric evaluation at the Whitfield State Hospital was sufficient. Woodward's argument to the contrary is without merit.