Opinion ID: 1730820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the use of drugs without having first advised his hearing attorneys and without Billiot's consent violated his rights to due process?

Text: Billiot claims that his due process rights were violated when he was given anti-psychotic drugs without his consent. He argues that without a showing by the state that the treatment was in his best interest and that the medication was necessary to avoid danger to himself or others at Parchman, it was impermissible for the state to administer the drugs. He also argues that it was impermissible to medicate him without first giving him notice and the opportunity to be heard. The state responds that this assignment is waived because Billiot's counsel failed to make a timely objection or develop testimony on what affect the medication might have had for the purposes of Billiot's mental health examinations. In a similar situation, we have recently stated: Obviously if the State is correct in its contention that this assignment is waived for lack of a sufficient contemporaneous objection, then any potential merit is irrelevant. This Court has held that, if no contemporaneous objection is made, the error, if any, is waived. This rule's applicability is not diminished in a capital case. Russell v. State, 607 So.2d 1107 (Miss. 1992); Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 369 (Miss. 1987), cert. denied 488 U.S. 934 [109 S.Ct. 330, 102 L.Ed.2d 348] (1988); Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305, 319 (Miss. 1986). However, the Court does have prerogative in death penalty cases of relaxing the contemporaneous objection and plain error rules when justice so requires. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 142 (Miss. 1991) (procedural niceties give way to the search for substantial justice); Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798 (Miss. 1984) cert. denied 469 U.S. 1117 [105 S.Ct. 803, 83 L.Ed.2d 795] (1985); Culberson v. State, 379 So.2d 499, 506 (Miss. 1979). Harrison v. State, 635 So.2d 894, 903 (Miss. 1994). Harrison was forcibly injected prior to his trial. At the hearing to determine whether the court would order forcible injection of the anti-psychotic drug Haldol, the defense attorney generally objected to the forced medication of his client, stating [w]e, of course, will object to that. Id. Upon considering whether Harrison's constitutional argument against forced medication was waived, we said: We conclude that consideration of this issue is proper, not because of the heightened scrutiny or death is different argument, but because the issue in question presents a potential violation of constitutionally protected rights, recently addressed by the United States Supreme Court, and because it is unquestionably clear from the context as preserved in the record that the objection lodged by defense counsel was based on the rights safeguarded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and applicable to this case via the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 903-04. Billiot made no objection at the competency hearing that the state violated his constitutional rights by administering anti-psychotic drugs to him prior to his competency evaluations. He argues, however, that this issue should not be waived because he expressly argued this point in his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The fact is, Billiot never made an objection at all. He did argue in his proposed findings and conclusions that the state committed constitutional error here; however, the time to make that argument was before the state administered the medication, and if counsel could not have reasonably known of the prescribed anti-psychotic medication at that time, then the time to argue this issue was before the competency hearing. Furthermore, Harrison does not stand for the proposition that raising a constitutional claim, absent objection, in one's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is sufficient to avoid the procedural bar. This assignment and the subheads flowing therefrom are procedurally barred.