Opinion ID: 524289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Question Attempting to Elicit Incriminating Evidence

Text: 15 from Psychologist 16 Raymer also contends that the court erred in overruling his objection and refusing his request for a mistrial when the government attempted to elicit an incriminating statement Raymer had made from one of Raymer's court appointed psychologists. Pursuant to Raymer's motion in limine, the government had been directed by the court not to ask any questions of any psychiatrist or psychologist, without prior permission of the court, regarding incriminating statements Raymer may have made. This instruction was allegedly violated, and Raymer objected. 17 The exchange in question took place during the government's cross examination of Raymer's sole defense witness, Dr. Dawn Baraldi, who testified in favor of Raymer's insanity defense. 18 Q (By Government's Attorney): Do you recall the portion of that report where the psychologist stated in the report that Mr. Raymer had stated that he was somewhat upset because it took him four tries in order to have the federal authorities indict him and remove him from the Kentucky State prison system? 19 A: Yes I recall that-- 20 Q: Now do you recall the portion of the report that it says it appears that his actions were based on logical decision-making and were not the result of any serious mental illness? 21 At that point the defense objected to this line of questioning and asked for a mistrial. A bench conference ensued. The court overruled the objection and refused to grant a mistrial. 22 Prior to the trial, the defense had moved for a psychiatric examination to determine Raymer's competency under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4241. That motion was granted, and Dr. Baraldi's testimony concerning Raymer's sanity dealt with the two competency examinations to which he was submitted. Raymer argues that under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), use of a competency examination by the prosecution for purposes of proving Raymer's guilt violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The government responds that under Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987) the findings of Smith are limited, because the Court held that the government may use the psychiatric evaluation for purposes of disputing Raymer's insanity claim. Contrary to the defense's claim, many of the circumstances of the present case are closer to those of Buchanan than to those of Smith. In Buchanan, the defense moved for the examination, the entire defense was based on mental status, and the defendant did not take the stand. Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 423-24, 107 S.Ct. at 2918. All these facts parallel those of our case. 23 Buchanan does differ from Raymer's case however on one critical point. In the report of the competency exam in Buchanan the psychiatrist set forth his general observation about the mental state of the petitioner but had not described any statements by petitioner dealing with the crimes for which he was charged. Id. (emphasis in original). In the case at hand the report clearly made reference to Raymer's statements that he wrote the threatening letters in order to have federal authorities remove him from the Kentucky prison. The government claims that it asked questions regarding this area of the report not to prove Raymer's guilt but rather his sanity. The government contends that his threats were a deliberate and rational attempt to get out of the Kentucky prison system and into the federal system. 24 There are two alternative grounds for holding that overruling the objection to the question was not reversible error. The first is invited error. The second is that, assuming it was error, it was so minor as to be harmless. First, the subject of Raymer's motive was only brought up by the government after the defense, during direct examination, had asked Dr. Baraldi about the defendant's discussion of letters he wrote to persons as a result of his YCA conviction. The relevant questioning by the defense was as follows: 25 Q: (By Raymer's Attorney): Did Mr. Raymer talk to you about his problems back in December or early 1987? 26 A: He talked with me about his problems and he related some of them to his time in prison in Kentucky. I cannot be specific as to what dates he was talking about. 27 Q: Okay. Do you recall him talking about his YCA conviction? 28 A: Yes I do. 29 Q: And do you recall him talking about some letters that he wrote to different people as a result of that YCA conviction? 30 A: I recall him talking about being angry towards these people and having some issues with them yes. 31 (emphasis added). Raymer's statement to the psychologists regarding letters he had written was thus revealed for the first time on direct examination of Dr. Baraldi, who was the defendant's own and sole witness. 32 The doctrine of invited error applies to this situation; when injection of inadmissible evidence is attributable to the actions of the defense, the defense cannot later object to such invited error. United States v. Lemaire, 712 F.2d 944, 948-49 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 535, 78 L.Ed.2d 716 (1983). See also, United States v. Archer, 733 F.2d 354, 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 861, 105 S.Ct. 196, 83 L.Ed.2d 128 (1984) and 469 U.S. 862, 105 S.Ct. 198, 83 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984); United States v. Taylor, 508 F.2d 761, 763-64 (5th Cir.1975). 33 A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself, particularly where, as here, it is not clear that the defendant was prejudiced thereby. United States v. Lewis, 524 F.2d 991, 992 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 938, 96 S.Ct. 1673, 48 L.Ed.2d 180 (1976). The prosecutor's reference to Raymer's statements concerning the letters he had written only briefly touched on a matter the defense had already raised. Furthermore, it is hard to see how Raymer was prejudiced, particularly since the witness did not completely answer the question and the government did not mention the matter again. If there was any error in not sustaining the defense's objection to the question, it is not a ground for reversal because of the invited error doctrine. 34 Second, even if we assume that the government's question began to delve into inadmissible subject matter, any error in allowing the government's very brief question, unanswered, was harmless. In Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), the Supreme Court rejected the notion that errors even of constitutional dimension necessarily require reversal of criminal convictions. Id. at 21-22, 87 S.Ct. at 827. Since Chapman, the court has repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). 35 Raymer essentially claims that his Miranda rights against self-incrimination were violated because his incriminating statements made to a psychologist during a competency examination were used against him although he was not made aware that that could be the case. The short answer is that the effect on the trial of this brief exchange constituted a minor technical error at best. The general question was only partially answered. The follow-up question by the prosecution, which elicited the objection, was dropped without answer. This brief exchange in no substantial way cast doubt upon the psychologist's testimony and diagnosis or incriminated Raymer by proving a responsible mental capacity. Added to this minor matter must be the fact that the evidence of Raymer's guilt is overwhelming. Harryman v. Estelle, 616 F.2d 870, 875-77 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 161, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980). 36 We conclude that the defense invited the critical question on direct examination, but that in any event, the brief questioning episode was so minor that even if there was technical error it was harmless.