Opinion ID: 2027925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: psychiatric testimony as substantive evidence

Text: Appellant claims that the trial court erroneously refused his tendered instructions on self-defense and accident. The evidentiary basis upon which these defense instructions were predicated was statements Brown made to Dr. Batacan during psychiatric evaluation. Appellant argues that a psychiatrist's testimony regarding such statements constitutes substantive evidence because the psychiatrist's opinion of the accused's sanity is presumably based upon the assumption that what the accused tells the psychiatrist is truthful. The State objected to the use of this testimony as substantive evidence, and the trial court ruled that such statements warranted only limited admissibility since appellant would not be testifying at trial. The jury was charged with the following instruction which is challenged by appellant: Statements attributed to the Defendant were testified to by Doctor Batacan and referred to in Doctor Arshads' report. These statements attributed to the Defendant were not offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matters stated therein but rather for the sole and limited purpose of showing the statements were made during the course of the examinations by the psychiatrist. Dr. Batacan testified during the insanity phase of the trial that appellant told him that the decedent and appellant were struggling when the gun fired. Appellant relies on Phelan v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 542, 406 N.E.2d 237 and James v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 304, 411 N.E.2d 618, to support his claim that the psychiatrist's testimony constitutes substantive evidence for his tendered instructions. In both Phelan and James the issue was whether statements which the defendant made to a psychiatrist during a compulsory psychiatric evaluation were admissible through the psychiatrists' trial testimony. The Phelan Court held such statements to be admissible for the purpose of demonstrating the defendant's mental condition but not for establishing defendant's guilt. Since Frank James did not make a contemporaneous objection to the psychiatrist's testimony, this Court did not discuss the merits of whether such testimony could be used to impeach the credibility of the defendant. We conclude that these statements do not constitute substantive evidence for appellant's tendered instructions. While a criminal defendant has the constitutional right not to testify at trial, the defendant has the burden of proof on any affirmative defense. In this case the appellant did not testify at trial or present other evidence to support his affirmative defenses. While defendants have the prerogative to choose the trial strategy deemed best for them, appellant cannot make exculpatory statements to a court appointed psychiatrist, present no evidence on his defense, preclude the State from cross-examining appellant's assertions made through the psychiatrist, and then expect such self-serving statements to constitute substantive evidence for his tendered instructions. The trial court properly charged the jury with an instruction limiting the purposes for which such testimony may be considered. Since there was not any evidence to support the affirmative defenses of accident and self-defense, the trial court properly refused appellant's instructions.