Opinion ID: 1148775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: examination by independent physician

Text: The defendant argues that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to allow the Superintendent to select the particular physician to perform the second examination. He contends that this selection method not only violated the purpose of the statuteto obtain a second, independent opinionbut also violated the spirit and objective of the trial court's own order. However, there is no showing that the defendant objected to the physician chosen until after his unfavorable recommendation became known. Having previously consulted at the State Hospital does not disqualify a doctor from being appointed by the court. As to the contention that the method of selection violated the spirit and objective of the trial court's own order, we consider that the trial judge was in a better position to determine that than we. We find no prejudicial error in the procedure used to select the second examining physician.