Opinion ID: 1366919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the trial court err by allowing the State to conduct a psychiatric evaluation of Odiaga?

Text: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the Idaho Constitution prohibit compelling a criminal defendant to be a witness against himself or herself. Following Idaho's repeal of the insanity defense, no statutory scheme remains through which a psychological evaluation can be compelled without threatening the rights guaranteed under both of those constitutions. This procedure also directly implicates the psychotherapist-patient privilege provided under I.R.E. 503. That rule provides that, in criminal proceedings, the patient may refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition.... I.R.E. 503(b)(2). Although I.R.E. 503(d)(3) states that [t]here is no privilege under this rule as to a communication relevant to an issue of the ... mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense[,] in the wake of Idaho's repeal of the insanity defense, mental defect is no longer an assertable defense. This rule, and pre-repeal case law recognizing the State's right to compel a psychological evaluation of a defendant who pleads the defense of insanity, no longer apply. As a result, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing the State to compel Odiaga to submit to a psychological evaluation. See I.C. § 18-207(a) (Mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct.). The State urges that the trial court had inherent authority to compel a psychiatric evaluation, and analogizes the situation to medical examination in civil suits. However, this view ignores the plain language of I.R.E. 503, which allows such examinations when they pertain to an element of a claim or defense put in issue by the patient. This analysis also ignores the unique constitutional difficulties posed when a criminal defendant is compelled to submit to an examination.