Opinion ID: 1787815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Mental Examination Issue

Text: In line with the suggestions just made, I believe that this defendant was improperly refused a psychiatric examination. The defendant is indigent and has been represented at all stages by the St. Louis Public Defender's office. He was arraigned on June 18, 1981 and entered a plea of not guilty. At no time was there a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Four days later the defendant filed a document entitled motion for appointment of psychiatrist, and another entitled, motion to permit late filing of defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. This latter motion is anomalous. By the express language of § 552.030.2, RSMo 1978, a notice of intent to rely on a defense of mental disease or defect could have been filed, without leave of court, within ten days after arraignment. The motion for appointment of a psychiatrist stated that the defense counsel was unable to advise her client as to whether a plea of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility should be made until a professional mental examination could be had and evaluated. The motion also contained the request that the results of the examination be available to the defendant alone unless and until such a plea should be entered. There is no indication that the motion for leave was ever called up, brought to the court's attention, or ruled on. The first motion for appointment of a psychiatrist was overruled by Judge McGuire on July 1, 1981. There is nothing in the record as to the proceedings on this motion, other than the ruling, and no explanation of the court's reason for its action. It appears from later proceedings that the defendant had the opportunity to present evidence in support of this motion and presented none. On July 20, 1981, a second motion seeking appointment of a psychiatrist was filed. This motion was similar to the previous one, but recited that the defendant had been less cooperative in dealings with his counsel than earlier. This motion was also overruled, on August 12, 1981, by Judge McGuire, without prejudice. A third motion was filed January 25, 1982, before the judge who presided at the trial. This motion, for the first time, contained the statement that psychiatric evidence was needed for use at the penalty phase of the trial in the event of a conviction of capital murder. Counsel also adduced, during argument on the motion, the military records of the defendant, including a report of a suicide attempt in 1967 while in Vietnam. The court again overruled the motion, without taking note of the newly suggested need for psychiatric evidence, stating that's been denied two times before, and commenting on the lack of supporting evidence. A fourth motion was filed on February 16, 1982 just before trial began. Counsel, in response to the trial judge's question, stated that she was not relying on the defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility because, in the absence of psychiatric information, she had no basis for determining whether the defense had merit. Counsel also mentioned the importance of psychiatric information at the penalty phase of the trial. The motion was again denied and the trial began forthwith without the indigent defendant's having had any psychiatric examination. The state's justification for the court's failure to appoint a psychiatrist is purely procedural. It is asserted that § 552.030.4 gives no authority for such an examination unless the defendant either enters a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect excluding responsibility, or files a notice of intent to rely on that defense, in accordance with § 552.030.2. The state goes on to argue that the filing of June 22, 1981 should not be treated as an appropriate notice, because it is cast in the form of a request for leave and was never called up as a motion or brought to the court's attention. The state's conclusion is that the defendant was not entitled to the examination because his counsel failed to take the required steps to obtain it. The conduct of defense counsel is indeed puzzling. It is difficult to see how the defendant could possibly be harmed if notice of intent to rely on the mental defense were given. The notice could be withdrawn at any time, and, if withdrawn, would not prejudice the defendant in the subsequent proceedings. In contrast to the situation in civil cases, a criminal defendant is entitled to tender any recognized plea in order to lay the foundation for defense, and counsel does not vouch for the factual accuracy of the plea. So, by the simple expedient of making the appropriate plea or giving notice, defense counsel could have obtained the requested examination and could have had the benefit of the information it contained during both phases of the trial. Had the examination disclosed no mental problem there would be no prejudice. [2] State ex rel. Jordon v. Mehan, 597 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.App.1980) rejected a claim for confidential treatment of the psychiatric information, holding that the sense of §§ 552.020 and 552.030 is that reports ordered pursuant to those sections are to be available to both parties. The court specifically rejected the claim that a defendant is entitled to a confidential evaluation in order to decide whether to use the mental defense, but recognized the defendant's problem and suggested the use of the public defender's funds, citing § 600.040 and § 600.150, RSMo 1978. The present motions cited these sections also, but the record is silent as to the availability of funds. The entire responsibility for the absence of a psychiatric evaluation should not be placed on the defendant, or on his counsel. It would have been far better if one of the judges to whom the successive motions were presented had assumed a more active role when the motions were presented. The courts should lean over backwards to provide psychiatric evaluation for an indigent defendant held to answer capital charges. The court's powers under Chapter 552 are not so circumscribed as the state would have it. Section 552.020 clearly authorizes the court to act on its own motion. Even though that section deals with the determination of fitness to stand trial, the report of an examination is expressly required to include the examiner's conclusion as to the presence of a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. Counsel's representations of problems of communication with the defendant, as contained in the second motion, suggest that an inquiry into capacity was imperative. It would have been far better if the responsible judge, at some time before trial, had called counsel before him to explore the entire matter of mental examination and the motions and papers on file. The intention behind the request to permit late filing could have been probed. If counsel stood on the request for confidential treatment, and said that she did not want the examination without this proviso, the record would at least be clarified, and inquiry might have been made as to the availability of funds under § 600.040 or § 600.150, as suggested by the Court of Appeals in Jordon, supra. A notice of intent in proper form might have been suggested. If counsel had some devious purpose in proceeding as she did, this too could have been smoked out and appropriate action taken. The trial judge suggested that the earlier motions had been denied because of lack of evidence to justify the examinations. It is the sense of the statutes that requests for examination should be freely granted on the basis of counsel's representations. There are, furthermore, circumstances suggesting that an examination was appropriate in this case. It is entirely proper for the prosecutor to argue to the jury that events 15 years ago in Vietnam are too remote to permit a conclusion as to the defendant's mental capacity, but a publicly appointed lawyer who is not trained in psychiatry would nevertheless be concerned about the defendant's prior psychiatric history, and would want expert advice and guidance. Evidence of drug use or dependency might suggest further inquiry even though not necessarily indicating mental disease or defect. Counsel's representations of problems of communication with the defendant should also be a matter for serious concern, as these raise questions of capacity to stand trial. The suggestion that evidence is required before the court may or must order a psychiatric examination is circular. It is not reasonable to assume that all persons suffering from mental disease or defect exhibit objective manifestations, so that mental examination may not be had unless the need is demonstrated by lay evidence. The very irrationality of the defendant's act and the absence of reasonable expectation of gain from his conduct are circumstances indicating that the possibility of mental disease or defect should be explored. The defendant is also on solid ground in suggesting that psychiatric evaluation may be important for the penalty phase of the trial, even if there is no substantial claim of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. Section 565.012.3(2), RSMo 1978 provides that the defendant may show as a mitigating circumstance [t]he capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. The presence of this circumstance demonstrates the need for expert guidance in preparing a defense. Other evidence of mental problems is also freely admissible at the punishment phase. See State v. McIlvoy, 629 S.W.2d 333 (Mo. banc 1982). The statutes provide adequate grounds for affording such an examination as an essential step in preparation for trial of a capital murder case. Assistance of this kind is probably required as a matter of due process of law, even in the absence of explicit statutory provision. The state cites two divisional cases: State v. Haley, 603 S.W.2d 512 (Mo.1980) and State v. Ingram, 607 S.W.2d 438 (Mo.1980). Both of these cases were decided on the basis that the defendant waited until trial was imminent before making known any circumstances which might show that a mental examination was appropriate. In each case the court held that the record did not show substantial facts indicating the presence of mental disease or mental defect. For the reasons just stated they do not control the present situation, in which the need for a mental examination was suggested at an early stage. Even though it would have been far preferable for the court to have ordered a mental examination, I do not believe that it is necessary to reverse the conviction of capital murder for this reason. The application was technically deficient, and there is no indication in the record that the defense would have been able to demonstrate mental disease or defect sufficient to exclude responsibility. The question whether there might be a viable defense on grounds of mental incapacity could probably be answered on the basis of an examination conducted at the present time, [3] but any such procedure is foreign to this appeal. It is not necessary to set aside the conviction simply because of the highly speculative possibility that a mental capacity defense might have been feasible. The situation is different as to the sentence of death. The request for an examination for use at the penalty stage was tendered nearly three weeks before trial. There was occasion for it. The application should have been granted. The inquiry as to mental condition at the penalty stage may range far more widely than in the trial of the issue of guilt. It is not possible to determine at this time what the jury might have done at the penalty stage, had it had the benefit of a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant. A death sentence, under these circumstances, should not be sustained.