Opinion ID: 874884
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of State's experts' opinions

Text: Below, Payne sought to exclude from consideration at sentencing his pre-trial statements to Drs. Engle and Estess, the State's expert witnesses, on the basis that I.C. § 18-207 is unconstitutional when applied to capital cases. However, the district court found that I.C. § 18-207 is constitutional. It also found Payne was on notice that his Fifth Amendment rights are waived when he puts his mental condition in issue at sentencing. The [court] will permit the use of the statements for purposes of cross-examination of the defendant or his experts and will further permit the use of the statements by the State in rebuttal. The use of those statements is subject to the usual rules of evidence. Then, during the sentencing hearings Payne called Drs. Gummow and Rogers as witnesses, and they testified extensively to his mental health. The State then called Drs. Engle and Estess as witnesses. On appeal, Payne argues that I.C. § 18-207(4)(c) violates his Eighth Amendment rights because it limits the presentation of relevant evidence during mitigation. He asserts that this section is unconstitutional when applied to the sentencing phase of capital cases because it conditions the presentation of mitigation upon waiving Fifth and Sixth Amendment privileges. He also contends that the district court erred by not applying I.C. §§ 18-215 and 19-2522 to prohibit the use of Payne's pre-trial statements to Drs. Engle and Estess during the sentencing phase of his trial. The State argues there is no distinction between relying on mental health evidence during the guilt phase and relying on it during sentencing; therefore, the tactical decision to present mental health evidence and waive certain rights is not unconstitutional. Additionally, the State asserts the Court should not address Payne's arguments as to I.C. §§ 18-215 and 19-2522, as these are presented for the first time on appeal. We will turn first to the constitutionality of I.C. § 18-207. Idaho Code § 18-207(4)(c) provides: (4) No court shall, over the objection of any party, receive the evidence of any expert witness on any issue of mental condition, or permit such evidence to be placed before a jury, unless such evidence is fully subject to the adversarial process in at least the following particulars: .... (c) Raising an issue of mental condition in a criminal proceeding shall constitute a waiver of any privilege that might otherwise be interposed to bar the production of evidence on the subject and, upon request, the court shall order that the state's experts shall have access to the defendant in such cases for the purpose of having its own experts conduct an examination in preparation for any legal proceeding at which the defendant's mental condition may be in issue. The Eighth Amendment requires that a defendant be allowed to present all relevant evidence in mitigation. The Federal Constitution requires States to allow consideration of mitigation evidence in capital cases. Any barrier to such consideration must therefore fall. McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 442, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 1233, 108 L.Ed.2d 369, 380 (1990) (emphasis removed). Here, however, the court did not bar the presentation of relevant mitigation evidence, it merely conditioned the presentation of the mental health evidence on the waiver of privilege found in I.C. § 18-207(4)(c). The issue for this Court, then, is whether the choice between not presenting mental health evidence or presenting mental health evidence at sentencing but waiving Fifth Amendment privileges as presented by I.C. § 18-207(4)(c) is constitutional. We hold that it is constitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States has never directly addressed this issue. However, it has examined similar issues. It has held that during the trial phase, the State may constitutionally require a defendant to submit to a mental health exam and present the evidence gleaned from the exam; however, Miranda v. Arizona , applies to the examination. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 468-69, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 1875-76, 68 L.Ed.2d 359, 372-73 (1981). In Estelle, the trial court had sua sponte ordered the psychiatric exam and the defendant did not put his mental status at issue. The Court held that a defendant, who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence, may be compelled to proceed with a competency examination, but statements made during the examination cannot be used against him during a capital sentencing proceeding. Id. at 468, 101 S.Ct. at 1876, 68 L.Ed.2d at 372. The Court left open the question of whether a defendant could be compelled to be examined by the prosecution's expert if he chose to present psychological evidence at sentencing. Id. at 466 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. at 1874, n. 10, 68 L.Ed.2d at 371, n. 10. The Court has also held, in a non-capital case, that a defendant who raises mental status as a defense waives his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 423, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 2918, 97 L.Ed.2d 336, 355 (1987). There, the Court noted that its statement in Estelle logically led to the proposition that if a defendant requests [a mental health evaluation] or presents psychiatric evidence, then, at the very least, the prosecution may rebut this presentation with evidence from reports of the examination that the defendant requested. Id. at 422-23, 107 S.Ct. at 2917-18, 97 L.Ed.2d at 355. In Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.1995), the Ninth Circuit was presented with an argument similar to Payne's. There, the defendant argued that the prosecution's presentation of evidence from other murders for which he had not yet been tried during the penalty phase of another murder case presented him with a Hobson's choice to remain silent during the presentation of mitigating evidence or to testify and have that testimony used against him in the other cases. Id. at 839. The court noted that [t]he criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring `the making of difficult judgments' as to which course to follow.... Although a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimension, to follow whichever course he chooses, the Constitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose. Id. (alteration in original). In such a situation, [t]he threshold question is whether compelling the election impairs to an appreciable extent any of the policies behind the rights involved. Id. (alteration in original). A state can constitutionally condition a defendant's decision to present psychological evidence during the guilt phase of his trial on his waiving constitutional rights. Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 422-23, 107 S.Ct. at 2918, 97 L.Ed.2d at 355. Likewise, a State can present evidence of charged, but untried, criminal acts during the sentencing phase of a capital murder presenting a defendant with the choice to testify at both trials or remain silent at both trials. Bonin, 59 F.3d at 840. It follows, then, that a state may condition a defendant's decision to present such evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial without running afoul of the constitution. Therefore, we hold that I.C. § 18-207(4)(c) is constitutional when applied to capital sentencing proceedings. Payne next argues that the district court erred in not applying I.C. §§ 18-215 and 19-2522 to the sentencing proceedings. He asserts that because he withdrew his intent to rely on a mental condition at trial, I.C. § 18-207 was no longer applicable and I.C. §§ 18-215 and 19-2522 should have controlled at sentencing. Moreover, since he was only relying on his mental condition as mitigating evidence, he argues that the State was not entitled to examine Payne or rely on its experts' testimony to support the imposition of the death penalty. The State argues that this Court cannot reach these issues, as Payne did not raise them below. Additionally, it asserts I.C. §§ 18-215 and 19-2522 are inapplicable and do not limit the admission of Payne's statements to the State's experts. First, the State's argument that this Court should not consider Payne's statutory arguments must fail. This Court must address Payne's statutory arguments pursuant to I.C. § 19-2827. State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho 405, 410-11, 631 P.2d 187, 192-93 (1981). Idaho Code § 19-2522 provides that if there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing ... the court shall appoint at least one (1) psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and report upon the mental condition of the defendant. I.C. § 19-2522(1). It also provides that the report shall include (a) A description of the nature of the examination; (b) A diagnosis, evaluation or prognosis of the mental condition of the defendant; (c) An analysis of the degree of the defendant's illness or defect and level of functional impairment; (d) A consideration of whether treatment is available for the defendant's mental condition; (e) An analysis of the relative risks and benefits of treatment or nontreatment; (f) A consideration of the risk of danger which the defendant may create for the public if at large.