Opinion ID: 1058852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: denial of substitute psychological expert and finding of failure to cooperate

Text: The trial court granted Juniper's motion under Code § 19.2-264.3:1(A) for the appointment of a mental health expert, Dr. Thomas A. Pasquale, to assist with his defense. Pursuant to Code § 19.2-264.3:1(F), the trial court granted the Commonwealth's request for a similar expert, Dr. David Keenan. The trial court also advised Juniper that his refusal to cooperate with the Commonwealth's expert could result in the exclusion of testimony by his expert witness or notice to the jury that Juniper refused to cooperate with the Commonwealth's expert. Juniper acknowledged to the trial court that he understood the requirements and the potential consequences for noncompliance. Code § 19.2-264.3:1(F)(2). On December 29, 2004, the Commonwealth's expert, Dr. Keenan, met with Juniper. Ten minutes into the meeting, Juniper stood, turned around, banged on the glass, said a few things, banged on the glass. Juniper became angry, cursed at Dr. Keenan and told a guard that Dr. Keenan was trying to set [him] up. Juniper demanded that the guard remove him from the interview room. The interview was thus terminated, and Dr. Keenan testified that he did not believe [he could] get any useful information from Mr. Juniper should they arrange another meeting. The Commonwealth then filed a motion under the provisions of Code § 19.2-264.3:1(F)(2) to bar Juniper from presenting expert testimony from Dr. Pasquale at sentencing or to permit the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the defendant's refusal to cooperate. Juniper filed a motion to appoint a substitute expert for Dr. Keenan. At the hearing on this motion, Juniper again acknowledged that refusal to cooperate with Dr. Keenan could result in either tell[ing] the jury that [he] refused to cooperate or ... exclud[ing] Dr. Pasquale. Though Dr. Keenan and Juniper's accounts of the interview questions differ, Juniper did not dispute that he refused to cooperate with Dr. Keenan or that he terminated the interview. Rather than asking that Juniper be prohibited from presenting his own expert testimony, the Commonwealth agreed to allow Juniper to present testimony from Dr. Pasquale as long as the jury was informed of his refusal to cooperate with Dr. Keenan. The trial court found as a matter of fact that Mr. Juniper refused to cooperate with the evaluation requested by the Commonwealth, and ordered the sanction recommended by the Commonwealth. Juniper assigns error to the trial court's finding of failure to cooperate and the denial of his motion to appoint a substitute expert in place of Dr. Keenan. Code § 19.2-264.3:1(F)(2) explicitly provides that the choice of sanction is within the trial court's discretion. Based on the record and Juniper's own admission that he made the decision to end the interview, the trial court's finding that Juniper refused to cooperate with Dr. Keenan was not erroneous. Similarly, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Juniper's motion to appoint a substitute expert. See Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 247, 372 S.E.2d 759, 764 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3261, 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989) (indigent defendant not entitled to a second psychiatric examination at state expense where the Commonwealth already had paid for his first examination); Pruett v. Commonwealth, 232 Va. 266, 276-77, 351 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 931, 107 S.Ct. 3220, 96 L.Ed.2d 706 (1987) (defendant has no right to `shop around' at state expense until he finds a doctor who will give him the opinion he wants).