Opinion ID: 2356004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Psychological Evaluation Fees

Text: On July 31, 2002, less than a week before commencement of appellant's trial, appellant filed a pro se Petition for Expert Witness Fee. Appellant stated that he had expressed a desire in October of 2000 to have a psychologist testify on his behalf at the penalty phase. Appellant then relayed that his stand-by counsel, the Chief Deputy Public Defender of Dauphin County, had contacted a psychologist who was willing to examine appellant over the weekend in time for the penalty phase, for a fee of $3,000. Appellant requested that the court authorize payment of that fee from public funds. Other than noting his desire, appellant cited no authority or theory, constitutional or otherwise, in support of the request for funds; nor did he allege any factual circumstances or issues that might require appointment of a mental health expert. The next day, then-President Judge Joseph H. Kleinfelter denied the motion, but without prejudice of [sic] the Public Defender to retain an expert out of the P.D.'s budget. Apparently, the Public Defender elected not to retain the expert. At the commencement of the penalty phase, after appellant announced that he did not wish to pursue any mitigating circumstances, standby counsel reminded the court of appellant's pre-trial request for funds for a psychological examination. Appellant responded, however, that he would like to withdraw that motion. N.T., 8/9/02, at 924-25. After further discussion between stand-by counsel and the trial court, appellant again urged the court to move on. Id. at 925-26. On appeal, appellant now argues that the trial court's denial of his pre-trial request for fees to obtain the services of his chosen psychologist denied him fundamental due process under the federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions. [6] Appellant notes that this Court has addressed the question of entitlement to fees for mental health examinations, but in a context involving a capital defendant's future dangerousness. Brief of Appellant, 25-26, citing Commonwealth v. Fisher, 572 Pa. 105, 813 A.2d 761 (2002) (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court, or OAJC), and Commonwealth v. Miller, 560 Pa. 500, 746 A.2d 592 (2000). Appellant also cites Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), which he deems significant for the following passage: We hold that when a defendant has made a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a State provide access to a psychiatrist's assistance on this issue, if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one. 470 U.S. at 74, 105 S.Ct. 1087. Appellant then places heaviest emphasis on Mr. Justice Saylor's Concurring Opinion in Miller (which was acknowledged by the Fisher OAJC). Appellant quotes the following passage from Justice Saylor's Concurrence: In those cases where a legitimate component of the defense to the charge of murder or the Commonwealth's effort to obtain a sentence of death lies in demonstrating to the jury a claim concerning the defendant's mental condition, expert psychiatric assistance may be indispensable. In such instances, I believe that it would be an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny a request for funding, even though the request would not implicate federal constitutional due process concerns as interpreted by [ Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 656 A.2d 877 (1995) (plurality), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 872, 116 S.Ct. 194, 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995)]. I would thus enforce as mandatory what the majority posits is permissive so that, as the trial court appropriately ensured in the present case, an indigent defendant is provided core resources necessary to present a full and fair defense in all phases of capital litigation. Miller, 746 A.2d at 605 (Saylor, J., concurring). Appellant does not suggest here, nor did he suggest below, that he made a preliminary showing that his sanity was at issue, as in Ake, or even a preliminary showing that some useful mental health mitigation evidence was likely to arise from a psychological examination. Nor has appellant ever suggested that a legitimate component of his defense at the penalty phase encompassed his mental condition, such that the view of the Miller concurrence is implicated. Instead, appellant's argument is absolutist. Indeed, the core of his argument consists of a simple declaration that: during the penalty phase of any capital murder trial, psychiatric/psychological assistance is indispensable to determine whether there is any available mitigation evidence to present, and that such a rule is particularly required when the defendant is representing himself at trial. Brief of Appellant, 27. In response, the Commonwealth first argues that appellant waived his claim for funds to retain a psychologist of his choosing when he was permitted to withdraw the motion at the outset of the penalty phase. In the alternative, the Commonwealth argues that, under existing decisional law, a capital defendant is not entitled to state-paid psychiatric assistance to discover, develop or prove mitigation evidence. Citing Christy, as well as Fisher and Miller, the Commonwealth argues that an entitlement to psychiatric fees has been recognized only if the Commonwealth argues future dangerousness as an aggravating circumstance which the defendant would attempt to rebut. The Commonwealth also argues that appellant's reliance on Ake is misplaced, as that case concerned entitlement to the assistance of a psychiatrist where the indigent defendant asserts that he was insane at the time of the offense, and not funds to attempt to discover mental health mitigation evidence for the penalty phase of trial. [7] We will first address the Commonwealth's waiver argument. Although the argument is colorable, we view the pre-trial and post-guilt-phase stages of trial to be sufficiently distinct that we will not hold that appellant waived his broad claim of entitlement to fees to retain a mental health expert to conduct an evaluation with an eye toward the penalty phase, by withdrawing the motion at the outset of the penalty phase. Moreover, although appellant cited no authority or theory in support of his pre-trial petition for fees, and did not specifically claim that a due process value was at stake, we deem the petition sufficient to preserve the claim presently forwarded. The pre-trial motion was made in broad terms; the present argument likewise is characterized in the broadest, most absolute terms; the trial court deemed the issue to have been preserved; and the Commonwealth does not dispute that due process was the implicit basis for the broad motion. Turning to the merits, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denying the eve-of-trial request for public funds to retain an expert of the defense's choosing to conduct a psychological examination. [8] The authorities appellant cites do not support the broad argument he makes here. Ake recognized two scenarios where state-paid psychiatric assistance for an indigent capital defendant could be required: (1) relating to the guilt phase[w]hen the defendant is able to make an ex parte threshold showing to the trial court that his sanity is likely to be a significant factor in his defense; and (2) relating to the penalty phasewhen the State presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant's future dangerousness. Ake, 470 U.S. at 82-84, 105 S.Ct. 1087. Appellant cites to the guilt phase rule in Ake, which obviously is inapposite. Moreover, the second rule in Ake involved rebuttal of psychiatric evidence respecting future dangerousness. Such is not the scenario here. Of course, the fact that appellant's claim does not fall squarely under Ake does not end the due process issue. Nevertheless, this Court's precedent construing Ake does not support appellant's broad request. In Commonwealth v. Appel, 547 Pa. 171, 689 A.2d 891, 908 (1997), this Court held that, when a defendant demonstrates that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the state must provide access to competent psychiatric assistance. Because the defendant in Appel did not invoke an insanity defense at trial, Ake was deemed inapposite. Id. In Christy, supra, the plurality recognized the penalty phase, future dangerousness scenario described in Ake, and held that a defendant is entitled to state-paid psychiatric assistance only to rebut the Commonwealth's argument of future dangerousness. 656 A.2d at 883. This limited focus was later reaffirmed in Miller and Fisher, the two Pennsylvania cases discussed by appellant. See Miller, 746 A.2d at 600; Fisher, 813 A.2d at 765. The federal circuits are presently divided as to the scope of Ake's application at the penalty phase of a capital trial. Some Circuits, such as those referenced by Justice Saylor in his Miller Concurrence, have interpreted Ake more broadly, requiring access to psychiatric assistance when sanity or some other mental issue is a significant factor at trial or sentencing. See, e.g., Smith v. Mitchell, 348 F.3d 177, 207 (6th Cir.2003) ( Ake requires psychiatric assistance during penalty phase if state presents psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness at penalty phase, or the defendant's sanity was a significant factor at trial); Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 928-29 (11th Cir.1992) ( Ake requires a state to provide the capital defendant with such access to a competent psychiatrist upon a preliminary showing to the trial court that the defendant's mental status is to be a significant factor at sentencing.). Other Circuits have taken an approach similar to Christy and Miller, i.e., limiting state-paid psychiatric assistance to circumstances where the state argues future dangerousness. See, e.g., James v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 543, 552 (10th Cir.2000) (psychiatric assistance must be provided at sentencing stage if state presents evidence of defendant's continuing threat to society and defendant establishes that his mental state could be significant mitigating factor); Goodwin v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 162, 188-89 (5th Cir.1997) (psychiatric assistance required only when state presents psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness, and not whenever future dangerousness is significant factor at sentencing). The U.S. Supreme Court's reading of Ake in subsequent cases has not yet suggested a broader application of Ake's rule. See Tuggle v. Netherland, 516 U.S. 10, 12, 116 S.Ct. 283, 133 L.Ed.2d 251 (1995); Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 164, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994) (plurality). [9] Significantly, however, it appears that, what ever the scope of the rule may prove to be, the courts are in agreement that, for an entitlement to funding to arise, there must actually be a mental health issue in the case i.e., either the government makes it an issue or the defendant makes a preliminary demonstration that his mental condition will be a relevant and significant factor at either trial or sentencing. In the present case, we need not determine whether Ake, due process, or some other jurisprudential value would require public funds to secure psychiatric assistance in a specific penalty phase scenario other than that involving future dangerousness. This is so because appellant proffers no specific argument in support of his request. He has made no preliminary showing that his mental state would be a factor during either the guilt phase or penalty phase of trial, and the Commonwealth did not argue future dangerousness at sentencing. Instead, the argument is broad, i.e., that in all capital cases, there is a right to such assistance in an attempt to uncover mental health mitigation. Both Ake and the Miller Concurrence, require more. For the foregoing reasons, appellant's claim regarding state-paid psychiatric fees fails.