Opinion ID: 2438728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to Psychiatric Examination

Text: Prior to the trial petitioner's court appointed counsel [1] moved the Court for an examination by a private psychiatrist, at State expense. The trial judge's denial of this motion forms the basis of petitioner's first assignment in this Court. There is no statutory predicate for the appointment of a private psychiatrist. Section 33-708(a), T.C.A., provides as follows: When a person charged with a criminal offense is believed to be incompetent to stand trial, or there is a question as to his mental capacity at the time of the commission of the crime, the criminal or circuit court judge before whom the case is to be tried may, upon his own motion or upon petition by the district attorney general or by the attorney for the defendant and after hearing, order the defendant to be evaluated on an outpatient basis by the community mental health center designated by the commissioner to serve the court or, if the evaluation cannot be made by the center, on an outpatient basis by the state hospital or the state supported hospital designated by the commissioner to serve the court. If in the opinion of those performing the mental health evaluation, further evaluation is needed, the court may order the defendant hospitalized, and if in a state hospital or state supported hospital, in the custody of the commissioner for not more than thirty (30) days for the sole purpose of further evaluation. (Emphasis supplied). It will be noted that the statute is discretionary, since it in no sense requires such an examination, nor does it specify that the examination be conducted by a psychiatrist as opposed to a psychologist, [2] nor does it contemplate the employment of a private practitioner. Since there is no statutory sanction for the employment of a private psychiatrist at state expense, we look to case law for precedent. Our investigation into the law leads us to the conclusion that this is an area wherein the law has not been fully and finally settled. There is an apparent cleavage, with no qualitative or quantitative preponderance. See annotation, Right of Indigent Defendant In Criminal Case to Aid of State by Appointment of Investigator or Expert, 34 A.L.R.3d 1256, and more particularly, sections 6(c) and (d). Pertinent to the issue is the rationale of Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974), wherein the Court was dealing with the due process right of an indigent defendant to a second tier appellate review. There the Court said: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages, (citations omitted) nor does it require the State to equalize economic conditions. 417 U.S. at 612, 94 S.Ct. at 2444. In Collins v. State, 506 S.W.2d 179 (Tenn. Cr.App. 1973), the defendant, prior to preliminary hearing, was committed to Central State Psychiatric Hospital for observation and a report thereof was submitted to the Court. Subsequently, both at a hearing to determine competency to stand trial and at the main trial, the reporting psychiatrist testified for the defendant, although some of his testimony was damaging. 506 S.W.2d at 187. The trial judge rejected a motion to appoint a private psychiatrist, at state expense, and the Court affirmed, holding that the defendant had no right to a psychiatric advocate. The Collins court relied in part on United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. 561, 73 S.Ct. 391, 97 L.Ed. 549 (1953), which held that the state was not required to appoint a psychiatrist to make a pre-trial examination of an indigent patient. See also Crum v. State, 530 S.W.2d 103 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1975). Essentially this is a matter that addresses itself to the judgment and discretion of the legislature. Thus far it has not seen fit to provide such services to indigent defendants. In this particular case the defendant called as a witness a highly qualified psychiatrist whose testimony fully supported his plea of insanity. We cannot see that he was prejudiced by the action of the trial judge, in law or in fact. We hold that an indigent defendant does not have a right under the federal or state constitution, to the services of a private psychiatrist, at state expense.