Opinion ID: 1610587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Did the denial of Nixon's request for a private psychologist render the penalty phase fundamentally unfair?

Text: Nixon did not raise the insanity defense at trial, nor did he claim to be incompetent to stand trial. Nixon's contention at trial and on appeal is that the trial court was constitutionally obligated to assist him, at the cost of $3,000 to Rankin County, in employing a psychologist to assist defense counsel in searching for and developing mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of Nixon's trial. By employing a private psychologist, Nixon was hopeful of establishing mitigating evidence under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(6)(b) (The offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.) or (f) (The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.) Nixon's original Motion for Psychological Assistance was argued before Judge Goza who, upon examining the cost of such assistance, inquired if the defendant could have his psychological examination at the Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield. Nixon's counsel opposed Judge Goza's suggestions because it was their belief the State Hospital at Whitfield did not perform the evaluations for which Nixon was asking. Nixon's motion was denied. Defense counsel's beliefs were later confirmed in an affidavit from Dr. Marsie Lancaster, an employee of the State Hospital. The affidavit read in part: The Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield is unable to conduct the requested evaluation as to any psychological mitigating circumstances of John B. Nixon Sr. for the purposes of assisting the defense. The Mississippi State Hospital commonly conducts evaluations for purposes of determining the competency of persons to stand trial and sanity of the persons at the time of the commission of the crime, with same being the limits of our diagnostic responsibilities. Prior to the commencement of the penalty phase, defense counsel renewed its Motion for Psychological Assistance, which was again overruled. Nixon relied at trial and relies on appeal on Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). After Ake's conviction and sentence were affirmed by an Oklahoma appellate court, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the issue whether the United States Constitution requires that an indigent defendant have access to the psychiatric examination and assistance necessary to prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition, when his sanity at the time of the offense is seriously in question. 470 U.S. at 70, 105 S.Ct. at 1090, 84 L.Ed.2d at 58. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding: We therefore hold that when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. This is not to say, of course, that the indigent defendant has a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. Our concern is that the indigent defendant have access to a competent psychiatrist for the purpose we have discussed, and as in the case of the provision of counsel we leave to the States the decision on how to implement this right. 470 U.S. at 83, 105 S.Ct. at 1097, 84 L.Ed.2d at 66. There are several important factors distinguishing Ake from the instant case. Unlike Ake, Nixon did not attempt to use the insanity defense. Had he done so, the county would have been obligated to pay the cost of an examining psychiatrist of the court's choosing. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-13-11 (1972). See also Miss.Unif. Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac. 4.08. Second, the State did not produce psychiatric testimony against Nixon in the penalty phase. To the contrary, in Ake, the State relied on psychiatric testimony establishing the petitioner's future dangerous behavior. Third, Nixon failed to demonstrate that his sanity at the time of the offense was to be a significant factor at trial. From an abundance of caution the trial judge made the following express ruling: So the defendant called no witnesses to present any evidence or testimony to support the motion for psychological examination. Consequently, there has been no showing of any kind to the Court that there would be any practical likelihood that that kind of examination would be helpful other than just a naked assertion of that but not supported by any evidence or testimony. There has been no contention filed at any time through this trial that the defendant was insane, and no insanity defense was presented. Both of those factors are quite distinguishable between this case and the Ake case. Based on those distinguishing factors, and knowing of no other authority which would grant relief to Nixon, this Court concludes that there was no error in the trial court's ruling.