Opinion ID: 2429694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Psychiatric Expert

Text: Davis also claims that the trial court erred in not granting funds for a psychiatric expert arguing that, although State Hospital psychiatrists examined him, these examinations were deficient because doctor/patient communications were not privileged. Davis received a psychiatric evaluation at state expense from the Ozark Guidance Center. The psychiatrist there concluded that there was a lack of psychosis but that Davis did have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder residual, which could have contributed to the commission of the offenses. Subsequently, Davis, joined by the State, filed a motion for psychiatric evaluation at the Arkansas State Hospital, which was granted. The resulting medical report revealed no psychoses but did indicate a psychoactive substance abuse and antisocial personality disorder. Next, Davis asked the court for funds to employ an independent psychiatric examiner, which the court refused to do. Case law supports the trial court's decision. This court has held that it is not error for the trial court to refuse to grant an appellant's motion for a psychiatric examination by a private psychiatrist at state expense. Love v. State, 281 Ark. 379, 664 S.W.2d 457 (1984). Perhaps most persuasive is the recent case of Sanders v. State, 308 Ark. 178, 824 S.W.2d 353 (1992): With respect to the question of a defendant's sanity at the time an offense was committed and competency to stand trial, this court has held that the statutorily provided review by a state hospital is sufficient. Coulter v. State, 304 Ark. 527, 804 S.W.2d 348 (1991). As previously stated, the appellant was examined by such a facility and found to have no problems with his sanity. The appellant is in fact arguing that he should have been allowed the opportunity to have a second opinion. Again the Supreme Court did not hold in Ake that a defendant has the constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to shop around to find one who will support his insanity defense. Sanders, 308 Ark. at 183, 824 S.W.2d 353, 356. In light of these cases, we conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to approve funding of a private psychiatric evaluation for Davis after approving two previous evaluations.