Opinion ID: 1154778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: examination by dr. cleary

Text: Defendant argues that ordering him to submit to an examination by Dr. Cleary violated his right against self-incrimination. We believe that a defendant who places his or her mental condition in issue and gives notice of an intention to rely on psychiatric testimony has opened the door to an examination by an expert appointed on motion of the state. See Riles v. McCotter, 799 F.2d 947, 953-54 (5th Cir.1986); see also State v. Briand, 130 N.H. 650, 547 A.2d 235, 239 (1988). The overwhelming majority of federal cases which have addressed the issue hold that a defendant may be compelled to submit to a psychiatric exam when he or she raises the defense of insanity. See, e.g., Presnell v. Zant, 959 F.2d 1524, 1534 (11th Cir.1992); Sturgis v. Goldsmith, 796 F.2d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Madrid, 673 F.2d 1114, 1121 (10th Cir.1982); United States v. Albright, 388 F.2d 719, 723 (4th Cir.1968). Although defendant here did not plead insanity, but sought only to prove lack of intent, we think the reasoning of these cases nonetheless applies. Cf. Briand, 547 A.2d at 240 (courtordered exam permissible when defendant intended to present psychiatric testimony that she suffered from battered woman's syndrome). But see State v. Vosler, 216 Neb. 461, 345 N.W.2d 806, 812-13 (1984). This is somewhat analogous to the rule that a defendant who elects to testify at trial may not invoke the self-incrimination privilege to avoid cross-examination. See State v. Taylor, 99 Ariz. 85, 90-91, 407 P.2d 59, 62-63 (1965). Accord Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U.S. 304, 315, 20 S.Ct. 944, 948, 44 L.Ed. 1078, 1083 (1900). To hold otherwise would deprive the state of the only adequate means to contest the conclusions of a defense psychiatric expert. See United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104, 1111-13 (D.C. Cir.1984) (plurality opinion) (upholding court-ordered psychiatric exam as necessary to maintain a fair state-individual balance). Defendant's reliance on Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), is misplaced. In Estelle, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that it violated defendant's privilege against self-incrimination to use against him at sentencing the testimony of a psychiatrist who performed a pre-trial competency examination without defendant's fully-informed consent. The Estelle court distinguished that case from those similar to the one at bar, in which a defendant claims a diminished mental condition and offers supporting psychiatric testimony. 451 U.S. at 465, 101 S.Ct. at 1874, 68 L.Ed.2d at 370. We therefore hold that ordering defendant to submit to a mental examination did not violate his privilege against self-incrimination. We note that this conclusion is consistent with past Arizona cases dealing with the privilege. See State v. Mauro, 159 Ariz. 186, 196, 766 P.2d 59, 69 (1988) (rejecting argument that it violated the privilege to allow a court-appointed psychiatrist to testify that defendant requested counsel during the exam); State v. Freeman, 114 Ariz. 32, 41-42, 559 P.2d 152, 161-62 (1976) (privilege against self-incrimination is not violated when psychiatrist who examined defendant for competency to stand trial testifies based on that exam that defendant was sane at the time of the offense); State v. Karstetter, 110 Ariz. 539, 542-43, 521 P.2d 626, 629-30 (1974) (where defendant raises insanity defense, allowing state psychiatrists to testify that defendant refused to talk with them did not violate the privilege); see also Rule 11.7(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S. (making evidence obtained pursuant to Rule 11 inadmissible at any proceeding to determine guilt or innocence unless the defendant presents evidence intended to rebut the presumption of sanity.)
Defendant further argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to have counsel present during the examination. Neither Estelle, upon which defendant relies, nor State v. Mauro, 149 Ariz. 24, 716 P.2d 393 (1986), rev'd on other grounds, 481 U.S. 520, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987), cited by the state, disposes of this issue. Estelle held that a defendant is entitled to assistance of counsel before being subjected to a psychiatric examination. 451 U.S. at 469-71, 101 S.Ct. at 1876-77, 68 L.Ed.2d at 373-74. Citing Estelle, this court held in Mauro that a defendant has a right to counsel in formulating an approach to the examination, but noted that whether there is a right to have counsel physically present during the examination is an unsettled question. 149 Ariz. at 34, 716 P.2d at 403. Although arguments have been made to the contrary, see, e.g., Byers, 740 F.2d at 1161-73 (Bazelon, J., dissenting); Houston v. State, 602 P.2d 784, 792-96 (Alaska 1979), we agree with the majority of courts addressing the issue that a defendant has no such constitutional right. See, e.g., Riles, 799 F.2d at 954; Byers, 740 F.2d at 1115, 1122 (plurality opinion); United States v. Mattson, 469 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir.1972); State v. Steiger, 218 Conn. 349, 590 A.2d 408, 420 (1991); State v. Brown, 235 Kan. 688, 681 P.2d 1071, 1073 (1984). A defendant has the right to an attorney at a pre-trial confrontation in which the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant's basic right to a fair trial as affected by his right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 227, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1932, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1157 (1967). While counsel's presence during the psychiatric examination might bestow a strategic benefit, it is not required to ensure defendant's right to a fair trial. Cf. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, 1183 (1967) (there is no right to have an attorney during the taking of handwriting exemplars; the risk that absence of counsel would derogate from a fair trial is minimal). Moreover, counsel's presence at a psychiatric examination might actually hinder the psychiatrist from effectively examining the defendant, State v. Hardy, 283 S.C. 590, 325 S.E.2d 320, 322 (1985), and therefore defeat the purpose of the exam. Rule 11.3, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S., seeks to provide procedural safeguards by requiring the examiner to be both qualified and court-appointed. Further, there has been no showing that Rule 11 examinations are particularly subject to abuse. Cf. Wade, 388 U.S. at 228, 235-37, 87 S.Ct. at 1933, 1937, 18 L.Ed.2d at 1158, 1162-63 (supporting a right to counsel at pretrial lineups because such procedures are peculiarly riddled with innumerable dangers and variable factors which might seriously, even crucially, derogate from a fair trial). If the defense wishes to challenge the manner in which a mental examination has been conducted, or an expert's conclusions, this can be done on cross-examination or during the testimony of its own witness. People v. Larsen, 74 Ill.2d 348, 24 Ill.Dec. 538, 542, 385 N.E.2d 679, 683 (1979); see also United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 315, 93 S.Ct. 2568, 2576, 37 L.Ed.2d 619, 629 (1973) (there are times when the subsequent trial would cure a one-sided confrontation between prosecuting authorities and the uncounseled defendant). The trial court did not err by refusing defendant's request to have counsel present at Dr. Cleary's exam. [1]
Finally, defendant argues that the court erred in admitting Dr. Cleary's testimony at trial because it was irrelevant and not proper rebuttal. We disagree. Dr. Bendheim testified that defendant had a tendency to hold in his feelings and then explode at inopportune moments. He described this as an impulsive personality. He testified that in his opinion the defendant did not intend to kill the victim. Rather, he said, defendant intended only to disable her so he could get away, but impulsively used excessive force. Defense counsel moved to preclude Dr. Cleary from testifying, arguing that he would say only that defendant was legally sane at the time of his examination. This obviously was not an issue in the case. Counsel additionally advised the court that Cleary would be unable or unwilling to express an opinion about defendant's character for impulsivity. The trial judge denied the motion. Dr. Cleary testified in part as predicted, but also said more. He admitted that because of the passage of time he could not render an opinion about defendant's mental state during the killing. He indicated that members of his profession were in significant disagreement as to how soon after an event a mental health expert should examine a person in order to fairly discern his or her mental state at the time of that event. He expressed reluctance to render his subjective impression of another person's subjective state. He also stated that he thought defendant attempted to control the examination by not going into areas that he did not want to discuss. The bulk of Dr. Cleary's testimony was relevant. It raised questions about the ability of Dr. Bendheim, or any other examiner, to formulate an accurate retrospective diagnosis of defendant's mental state at the time of the crime. The court did not err in allowing Dr. Cleary to testify, and though testimony regarding defendant's sanity at the time of the examination may have been irrelevant, defendant suffered no prejudice by its admission. JURY MISCONDUCT Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted a mistrial because of jury misconduct. A newspaper containing a report of defendant's rejected attempt to plead guilty was found in the possession of one juror. The judge questioned her and she denied having read the article or any other account of the trial. The bailiff also found newspapers in the jury room trash can, some of which contained an article about defendant. When a jury has considered extrinsic evidence, the trial court must grant a new trial unless it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that such evidence did not affect the verdict. State v. Chaney, 141 Ariz. 295, 311, 686 P.2d 1265, 1281 (1984). This decision lies within the sound discretion of the court. Id. There has been no showing of misconduct here. The trial judge personally questioned the juror who had the newspaper and discerned that she had not read the article. There was also no evidence that other jurors had violated the court's admonition by reading about defendant or the case, nor even a defense request that they be specifically questioned in this regard. Denying defendant's new trial motion was therefore not an abuse of discretion. JURY INSTRUCTIONS Defendant claims the trial court erred by failing to give proposed jury instructions regarding the admissibility of his confession. Proposed instruction 21 would have instructed the jury that the confession should be disregarded if it reasonably may have been the result of a mental condition. Defendant argues, citing State v. Porter, 122 Ariz. 453, 595 P.2d 998 (1979), that the jury should have had the opportunity to find his confession involuntary because it resulted from his mental condition, i.e., a tendency to act impulsively. The proposed instruction was properly refused because the evidence did not support it. Porter, 122 Ariz. at 456, 595 P.2d at 1001 (an instruction on voluntariness must be supported by substantial evidence). There was nothing to suggest that defendant acted impulsively when he confessed. By all accounts he was calm and coherent during the interrogation. Furthermore, defendant had the police called after he first related his conduct to his mother and pastor. Proposed instruction 21 goes far beyond that approved in Porter. The instruction there required the jury to disregard a confession if it  was by reason of mental illness ... not the product of a rational intellect and a free will, 122 Ariz. at 455, 595 P.2d at 1000 (emphasis added). The proposed instruction here required disregarding the confession if it  reasonably may have been the result of a mental condition.  (Emphasis added). We know of no law supporting such a charge. Proposed instruction 22 would have directed the jury not to consider the confession unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was both voluntary and true. This is also an incorrect statement of the law. Once the trial judge preliminarily determines that a confession is admissible, he or she must, if requested by the defense, instruct the jury to disregard the confession unless it is found to be voluntary. See Hart v. Eyman, 458 F.2d 334, 338 (9th Cir.1972); see also State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484, 488, 566 P.2d 285, 289 (1977). Defendant has cited no case, nor have we found any, holding that a jury must also find the confession true before considering it. Proposed instruction 27, which told the jury to disregard the confession unless it found it voluntary, did not differ in substance from the instruction given. [A] trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when it is adequately covered by other instructions. State v. Wiley, 144 Ariz. 525, 540, 698 P.2d 1244, 1259 (1985), overruled on other grounds by State v. Superior Court, 157 Ariz. 541, 544, 760 P.2d 541, 544 (1988). Thus, the trial court did not err by refusing it. DISPOSITION We have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. The judgment of conviction on all charges, and the sentences for kidnapping and sexual assault are affirmed. Defendant's death sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. MOELLER, V.C.J., and CORCORAN, MARTONE and FERNANDEZ, [2] JJ., concur.