Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Evidence demonstrating defendant's mental deficiencies requires the Court to remand the case to determine whether he is mentally retarded and hence ineligible to receive the death penalty pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)

Text: Defendant claims the possibility that he may be mentally retarded requires a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335(2002), the United States Supreme Court held the execution of mentally retarded persons constitutes an excessive punishment, and thus violates the Eighth Amendment. This Court addressed Atkins in State v. Williams, 01-1650 (La.11/1/02), 831 So.2d 835, 861, and directed trial courts in post- Atkins hearings: 1) to order a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation when the court has `reasonable grounds' to believe a defendant is mentally retarded, [La.C.Cr.P.] art. 643; 2) to hold the hearing before a judge, not a jury; 3) to require the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he meets the criteria established in Louisiana's statutory definition of mental retardation, LSA-28:381 [defining retardation as significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested during the developmental period]. In response to both Atkins and Williams, the Louisiana Legislature enacted 2003 LA. ACTS 698, which created LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 905.5.1. The code article provides for a procedure in the event a defendant raises a claim of mental retardation. Under the article, such a defendant has the burden of proving mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence. LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 905.5.1(C)(1). [46] The article defines mental retardation as: a disability characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. The onset must occur before the age of eighteen years. LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 905.5.1(H)(1). The article concludes with an advisory list of several medical conditions which do[ ] not necessarily constitute mental retardation. LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 905.5.1(H)(2). Included on the list are mental illness, organic brain damage occurring after age 18, and personality disorders. Id. In the case sub judice, Dr. Ware's report indicated defendant had been diagnosed as mildly retarded or at least slow learner level. (D.Exh.2, p. 4). Dr. Ware also testified defendant received a score of 50 out of 100 on his Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) test. Dr. Seiden, the State's rebuttal witness at the penalty phase, testified defendant's IQ was between 70 and 80. Dr. Seiden also stated he did not consider defendant mentally retarded, but rather that he functioned in the just below average range. (R., vol.XV, p. 3688). The Uniform Capital Sentence Report (UCSR) places defendant's IQ in the medium range of between 70 and 100. The record shows defendant performed poorly in school. Dr. Ware testified defendant reported being expelled from school in ninth grade, while Dr. Seiden's report suggests he dropped out of school in tenth grade while taking ninth grade classes after having repeated two years. Finally, the UCSR indicates defendant completed the eleventh grade. [47] Notably, as discussed supra, defendant's conduct and demeanor during the investigation of this murder do not support his contention he is mentally retarded. To the contrary, on the present record defendant fails to show a reasonable likelihood he qualifies as mentally retarded. Accordingly, we find a remand to the trial court for consideration of this issue is unwarranted.