Opinion ID: 2461850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the trial court erred in ordering a post-trial psychological examination of appellant.

Text: Appellant contends that he was denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when the trial judge ordered him to submit to a psychological exam and misled him concerning the content and use of the test. The trial judge sua sponte ordered the tests, expecting them to be helpful in sentencing the appellant. The psychological examination undoubtedly helped the trial judge assess the jury's recommendation of death. We find that under the circumstances the use of the psychological testimony was within the sound discretion of the trial judge and, that there is no error. Based on Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), appellant claims that Miranda warnings must be given prior to a psychological exam if the results are to be admitted in the penalty phase of a capital case. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Further, appellant claims that if the defendant does comply, the Fifth Amendment privilege must have been knowingly and voluntarily waived and that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches during a psychological examination. However, Estelle is factually distinguishable from the case at bar. In Estelle , the court ordered a psychiatric examination to determine the respondent's competency to stand trial on the charge of murder and the prosecution then used the psychiatric testimony during the sentencing phase as evidence of future dangerousness, an additional element. The respondent's attorney knew that the exam results would be used to determine his client's competency but was unaware the testing results would also be applied to the future dangerousness issue. Also, the respondent did not know the examination results would be applied to the sentencing phase of the trial. Under these circumstances, the court in Estelle , held that the prosecution could admit the psychiatric evidence to establish the prerequisites to impose death only if respondent had been apprised of his rights and had knowingly decided to waive them. Id. 451 U.S. at 469, 101 S.Ct. at 1876. In contrast, the results of the testing in the case at bar were used for the precise purpose for which they had been ordered. Marlowe's attorney knew the intended use of the psychological exam and was able to advise his client. Furthermore, the record clearly shows that appellant was warned that any statement he made to the psychologist could be used against him. The trial judge has statutory authorization for ordering a psychological examination. Kentucky Revised Statute 532.050(3), which details the presentence procedure for felony conviction, states that, [b]efore imposing sentence for a felony conviction, the court may order the defendant to submit to psychiatric observation and examination for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days. The trial judge must be given wide latitude to accomplish the penalty-setting task. Thus, the psychological exam was soundly within his discretion.