Opinion ID: 865375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether a mentally retarded defendant has

Text: BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND CORRESPONDING STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. ¶7. Thorson contends that his execution would be unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, corresponding state constitutional provisions, and Atkins, because he is mentally retarded. In Atkins, the United States Supreme Court determined that imposition of the death penalty on mentally retarded inmates constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 321. The Atkins majority cited two definitions of “mental retardation.” The first was from the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR). “Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18.” Id. at 308, n.3 (citing Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports 5 (9 th ed. 1992)). The second definition came from the American Psychiatric Association. “The essential feature of Mental Retardation is significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning (Criterion A) that is accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the following skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety (Criterion B). The onset must occur before age 18 8 years (Criterion C). Mental Retardation has many different etiologies and may be seen as a final common pathway of various pathological processes that affect the functioning of the central nervous system.” Id. (citing “American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” 41 (4 th ed. 2000)). The Atkins decision did not define who is or is not mentally retarded for purposes of eligibility for a death sentence but instead “leaves to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences.” Id. 536 U.S. at 317 (quoting Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 405, 416-17, 91 L. Ed. 2d 335, 106 S. Ct. 2595 (1986)). Atkins was decided on June 20, 2002, twelve (12) days after Thorson was sentenced to death on June 8, 2002. ¶8. The State argues that the this issue is procedurally barred pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1) (Rev. 2000) because Atkins was decided 434 days prior to the date Thorson filed his brief on direct appeal. It is the State’s position that Thorson should have argued his claim of mental retardation on direct appeal. We disagree. ¶9. In Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013, 1023 (Miss. 2004), this Court set forth specific requirements to be followed by the small number of persons with mental retardation claims who were convicted before Atkins and Chase were handed down. This Court decided Chase on May 20, 2004, almost two years after Thorson was convicted and nine months after he filed his direct appeal. This Court made clear that as a person convicted before Atkins was handed down, Chase constitutionally could not be denied the opportunity to present his mental retardation claim to the trial court where he had demonstrated that his IQ fell within the range of possible mental retardation, and he had presented an affidavit of a mental health 9 care professional that he suffered from “mild retardation.” Id. Thorson falls into the small group of persons discussed in Chase. ¶10. Further, Thorson could not have argued Atkins before the trial court. As stated previously, Thorson was convicted prior to Atkins. This Court repeatedly has stated that it will not consider assignments of error on appeal that were not first presented to the trial court. “We have held that error not raised at trial or in post-trial motions may not be reviewed on appeal. Foster, 639 So. 2d at 1289; Watts v. State, 492 So. 2d 1281, 1291 (Miss. 1986).” Davis v. State, 660 So. 2d 1228, 1246 (Miss. 1995). This matter is properly presented to this Court on Thorson’s petition for post-conviction relief because “in practical reality [it] could not be . . . raised at trial or on direct appeal.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3(2) (Rev. 2000). ¶11. This Court announced the requirements for obtaining a hearing to determine whether a capital defendant is mentally retarded as follows: With the sole exception discussed below, no defendant may be granted a hearing on the issue of Eighth Amendment protection from execution, due to alleged mental retardation unless, prior to the expiration of the deadline set by the trial court for filing motions, the defendant shall have filed with the trial court a motion, seeking such hearing. The defendant must attach to the motion an affidavit from at least one expert, qualified as described above, who opines, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that: (1) the defendant has a combined Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 75 or below, and; (2) in the opinion of the expert, there is a reasonable basis to believe that, upon further testing, the defendant will be found to be mentally retarded, as defined herein. Upon receiving such motion with attached affidavit, and any response filed by the State, the trial court shall provide a reasonable amount of time for testing the defendant for mental retardation. Thereafter, the trial court shall set a hearing on the motion, and the matter shall proceed. 10 Chase, 873 So. 2d at 1029. This Court further held: . . . that no defendant may be adjudged mentally retarded for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, unless such defendant produces, at a minimum, an expert who expresses an opinion, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that: 1. The defendant is mentally retarded, as that term is defined by the American Association on Mental Retardation and/or The American Psychiatric Association; 2. The defendant has completed the Minnesota Multi phasic Personality Inventory-II (MMPI-II) and/or other similar tests, and the defendant is not malingering. Such expert must be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist, qualified as an expert in the field of assessing mental retardation, and further qualified as an expert in the administration and interpretation of tests, and in the evaluation of persons, for purposes of determining mental retardation. Upon meeting this initial requirement to go forward, the defendant may present such other opinions and evidence as the trial court may allow pursuant to the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Id. Later, in Lynch v. State, 951 So. 2d 549 (Miss. 2007), this Court held that . . . in Mississippi it is acceptable to utilize the MMPI-II and/or other similar tests. [Chase] at 1029. This Court did not intend by its holding to declare the MMPI-II or any one test as exclusively sufficient. Having a variety of tests at their disposal, courts are provided with a safeguard from possible manipulation of results and diminished accuracy which might result if courts are limited to one test. The United States Supreme Court mentioned the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales Test. See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 309 n.5, 122 S.Ct. 2442. Other tests, as suggested by mental health experts, include the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS), the Validity Indicator Profile (VIP), and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). Id. at 556 (¶ 23). 11 The Court's interpretation in this case as to the proper test to be administered with regard to an Atkins hearing supercedes any contrary decisions. This Court neither endorses the MMPI-II as the best test nor declares that it is a required test, and decisions that state otherwise are expressly overruled. Id. at 557 (¶ 24). ¶12. The record in this case reveals that George T. Tate, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, testified at Thorson’s trial that he personally evaluated Thorson for roughly ten and a half hours. Additionally, Dr. Tate administered the Shipley intelligence test, the Wide Range Achievement Test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Revised, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Sentence Completion Test. Further, Dr. Tate reviewed a report on Thorson by Dr. Gasparrini from 1988. Dr. Tate testified that Dr. Gasparrini performed the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) on Thorson closer in time to the capital murder and found Thorson to have an IQ of 77. To check Dr. Gasparrini’s results without repeating the test, Dr. Tate testified that he performed the Shipley test and determined Thorson to have an IQ of 74. Dr. Tate testified that Thorson was “borderline retarded.” ¶13. At the sentencing phase, Dr. Tate testified that Thorson was “mentally handicapped, not to the degree of the mentally retarded, but that the intelligence is not adequate for many of the demands of life in stress situations.” Dr. Tate emphasized Thorson’s childhood was extremely unpleasant, that Thorson had a troubled relationship with his father, had nervous problems very early in school, and lacked self-direction in that he was easily influenced. 12 ¶14. Attached to his petition, Thorson provided this Court with an affidavit from Dr. Marc Zimmerman, a licensed psychologist, who states that he has met with Thorson and performed the following tests: Benton Visual Retention Test, 5 th edition; Short Category Test; Wide Range Achievement Test, Revision 3; Wisconsin Card Sort Test; Stroop Color and Word Test; Screening Test for Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery; Wechler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3 rd edition; Rey 15 Item Test, Test of Memory Malingering; and Luria Neuropsychological Battery. Dr. Zimmerman states that Thorson has a full-scale IQ of 70. Dr. Zimmerman is of the “opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that Mr. Roger Eric Thorson meets the criteria established by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM) and the American Association on Mental Retardation to be classified as mentally retarded.” He also states in his affidavit that Thorson’s adaptive behavior reveals deficits in functional academic skills, work, self-direction, and social/interpersonal skills and that it is documented that the onset of these deficits occurred before the age of eighteen. ¶15. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Thorson has met the requirements established by this Court in Chase and it progeny and this matter should be remanded to the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Harrison County for a hearing pursuant to Atkins, Lynch and Chase.