Opinion ID: 2545608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Testimony of Dr. Garcia

Text: Dr. Garcia testified that he was appointed by the court to conduct an evaluation of Caraballo. Dr. Garcia opined that at the time of the evaluation, Caraballo was being untruthful and was malingering. Dr. Garcia necessarily based his opinion on his observations of Caraballo during the competency evaluation, which was the only evaluation he performed. Specifically, Dr. Garcia testified that Caraballo claimed to have experienced visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory hallucinations. Because the reported number of occurrences of distinct hallucinations was abnormally high, Dr. Garcia concluded that Caraballo was malingering. Dr. Garcia also testified that during the evaluation, Caraballo feigned a visual hallucination of a roach. Moreover, Dr. Garcia testified that he gave Caraballo a standardized test [10] to evaluate malingering and concluded that Caraballo was malingering because he provided too many incorrect answers. Dr. Garcia also testified about Caraballo's understanding of the criminal process, a part of the evaluation which was essential to a determination of whether Caraballo was competent to proceed. Despite being cautioned before his testimony began, Dr. Garcia also mentioned during cross-examination that the evaluation he conducted was a competency evaluation. What is more, during redirect examination, Dr. Garcia was questioned by the State in great detail about the topic of competency. The transcript of the proceedings revealed the following: Prosecutor: Let's just go back to what you were appointed for now that we are allowed to say the magic word. You weren't appointed to find out whether or not four-and-a-half years before the defendant was sane when he committed the crime? Dr. Garcia: That's correct. Prosecutor: You weren't appointed to anything having to do with retardation? Dr. Garcia: That's correct. Prosecutor: Nobody even sent you an order saying please examine, please check, not even suggested? Dr. Garcia: That's correct. Prosecutor: Your purpose was limited to one thing; is that right? Dr. Garcia: That's correct. Prosecutor: And what was that? Dr. Garcia: Competency. Prosecutor: Explain to the jurors exactly what competency is? Dr. Garcia: Competency basically is, can you, at the time, at this time, at the time of the evaluation, go to court or consult with your attorney. In other words, do you have sufficient capacity to realize what you have been charged with? Do you realize the consequences, the seriousness of the charges? Can you speak to your lawyer, and saying this is the events as they happen? Can you, if somebody says something incorrectly or erroneous about you, can you tell the lawyers that's not the way it happened, this is the way it happened. Do you have an idea of how the court system works? Do you realize it's kind of like a boxing match where you have somebody who is defending you and you have somebody who is prosecuting you? And those are the kinds of things you look for in a competency evaluation. In other words, can you go to trial and understand what's going on? Prosecutor: Now is competency something that can vary month-to-month and year-to-year for everybody? Dr. Garcia: Yes. Prosecutor: The date that you were specifically asked to examine the defendant by court order, were you trying to determine right at that time if he was competent to sit down the way he is today and assist his attorneys in the presentation of the case? Dr. Garcia: That's correct. Prosecutor: And what did you conclude, sir? Dr. Garcia: That he was competent. Prosecutor: Were you ever asked to do anything else about this big book or anything else? Was there anything else ever requested of you by any other person? Dr. Garcia: No. Prosecutor: By myself, defense counsel, by the judge? Anybody? Dr. Garcia: Nobody. Prosecutor: Were your duties completed when you returned the report to the Judge saying I found this person to be competent to proceed, go ahead? Dr. Garcia: To the best of my knowledge my duties were complete. Prosecutor: Thank you, sir, nothing else. Dr. Garcia's testimony about Caraballo's competency evaluation illustrates the very harm that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.211(e) is intended to prevent.