Opinion ID: 867411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remand for Mental Retardation Hearing

Text: ¶ 16 Attempting to follow the procedures in A.R.S. § 13-703.02, the trial judge first suggested appointing a pre-screening expert to test Grell's IQ. Rather than subjecting Grell to additional testing, the State and the defense stipulated that Grell's IQ was less than 70 and that further IQ testing was unnecessary. ¶ 17 Before the mental retardation hearing, the parties briefed and argued the issue of burden of proof. The statute places the burden on the defendant to prove mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. A.R.S. § 13-703.02(G). Grell argued, however, that because mental retardation serves as a constitutional bar to execution, the standard should be no higher than a preponderance of the evidence. Rejecting Grell's claim, the trial court required Grell to prove mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. ¶ 18 During preparations for the hearing on remand, a new defense expert, Dr. Denis W. Keyes, interviewed Grell. The State requested that Grell also submit to examination by its new expert, Dr. Dan Martel. Before Dr. Keyes completed his report and before meeting with Dr. Martel, Grell told his attorneys he was not willing to cooperate any further with any of our experts or investigators. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Keyes completed his report, which concludes that Grell has mental retardation. ¶ 19 After receiving Grell's written refusal to be examined, the State moved to Preclude Defendant's Additional Mental Health Professional. The defense, which did not yet have Dr. Keyes' report, did not respond to the motion. As a result of these circumstances, the trial court granted the State's motion to preclude Dr. Keyes from testifying. After receiving Dr. Keyes' report, the defense filed a Motion to Reconsider, which was denied. ¶ 20 Following the motion and Grell's refusal to cooperate, each side determined that it had no additional evidence to present and would rely on the evidence presented at the June 2001 hearing. The court held oral argument on December 7, 2004, at which each side argued from the same documents and the same testimony to the same judge as in the first hearing. Quoting extensively from the record and noting that it had previously found the State's experts more persuasive, the trial court found nothing to change its mind and concluded that Grell had failed to satisfy his burden of proving mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence.