Opinion ID: 1859798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Chapter 552 Examination Used to Prove Aggravating Circumstances

Text: Worthington contends the trial court committed plain error in letting the state use his statements to Dr. Max Givon, made during a chapter 552 competency evaluation, to prove the statutory aggravating circumstances. He also claims that the admission of his statement violated his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. Dr. Givon's report and testimony were stipulated to at trial. Thus, plain error review is requested. Dr. Givon's Testimony Used to Prove Statutory Aggravating Circumstances Worthington fails to demonstrate manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice by the admission of Dr. Givon's testimony. Dr. Givon, a psychologist, evaluated Worthington to determine if he was competent to stand trial and to assist his attorney and to determine if he suffered from a mental disease or defect. He diagnosed appellant as cocaine and alcohol dependent and as having anti-social personality disorder. Dr. Givon also said Worthington was malingering, which is the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated psychological or physical symptoms for an external reward. Missouri statutes divide the guilt phase of trial from the penalty phase of trial in order to allow the admission of all relevant evidence in the penalty phase without fear of prejudicing the defendant in the guilt phase. Section 565.030.2. [6] Here, Worthington's guilt had already been established. Although Dr. Givon's diagnosis may have been internally inconsistent and his examination perhaps not as thorough as the other doctors who had previously seen Worthington, it was not plain error for the court to allow it as evidence during the penalty phase. See State v. Copeland, 928 S.W.2d 828, 839 (Mo. banc 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1126, 117 S.Ct. 981, 136 L.Ed.2d 864 (1997). Did Use of Statements Violate the Right to Remain Silent and Right to Counsel? Worthington claims that the admission of his statements to Dr. Givon violated his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney, relying on Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). This reliance is misplaced. Estelle stands for the proposition that a criminal defendant who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing proceeding. 451 U.S. at 468, 101 S.Ct. 1866; State v. Copeland, 928 S.W.2d at 839. Here, Worthington, through counsel, requested the evaluation pursuant to section 552.020 and put his mental condition in controversy. Thus, since Worthington initiated the examination, he was not compelled to testify against himself, nor was his right to counsel violated.