Opinion ID: 2377543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Tests administered by the State's expert

Text: Ybarra also argues that the district court erroneously relied on the IQ test administered by the State's expert, Dr. T. Young, because that test was improperly administered and therefore invalid. Specifically, Ybarra argues that Dr. T. Young used a test that was designed for a quick assessment rather than making a legal determination of mental retardation and the test was improperly administered because Dr. T. Young acknowledged that prison guards were present during the test, contrary to testing protocol. In considering the IQ test administered by Dr. T. Young, the district court focused on its relationship to other evidence indicating that Ybarra was malingering. The court considered the test to be invalid because other evidence, including reports from mental health evaluations, prison medical records, letters and prison communications from Ybarra, and other tests that Dr. T. Young administered to Ybarra, indicated that Ybarra was malingering. It is not clear how the court's conclusion that the test was invalid for reasons other than those advanced by Ybarra helps Ybarra, particularly considering that the IQ score on that test, if it were valid, would have placed Ybarra within the mild range of mental retardation. [18] Therefore, we are unpersuaded that any consideration the district court gave to the IQ test administered by Dr. T. Young was improper or unfounded. Ybarra further argues that Dr. T. Young improperly used and administered the TOMM to support his conclusion that Ybarra was malingering and the district court failed to consider evidence showing the inaccuracy of the TOMM test results, which included evidence that the TOMM should not be used on persons who are mentally retarded and that the test sometimes gives false positive results. We are not persuaded that the district court's consideration of the TOMM score requires reversal. Clearly, the district court considered the TOMM results in its decision, observing that the TOMM score indicated malingering, but it is also clear that the district court considered a wealth of other evidence in determining that Ybarra was malingering and therefore had not proved significant subaverage intellectual functioning. Specifically, the district court found evidentiary support for malingering in the prison kites that Ybarra had written over the years, which reveal[ed] an intelligence level which is clearly not that of a mildly retarded person, and the medical progress notes during his incarceration that portray[ed] Ybarra as a man who knows how to manipulate and fake (or exaggerate) symptoms of mental illness to accomplish his goals. The district court also observed that comments by mental health professionals who evaluated Ybarra during his incarceration indicated that their testing of Ybarra revealed malingering. And the district court illustrated all of those conclusions with specific references to evidence in the record. The district court further observed Ybarra's ability to manipulate health care professionals, attorneys, play scrabble, backgammon, racquetball and volleyball, and his ability to type, read medical literature, [and] write coherent meaningful letters and kites. Thus, there is evidence other than the TOMM score to support the district court's finding that Ybarra was malingering. Moreover, as with the 1981 IQ score, the TOMM score is of little value in determining whether Ybarra met his burden of proving significant subaverage intellectual functioning, as the TOMM was administered well after Ybarra reached 18 years of age. The district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and support its conclusion that Ybarra did not show that he suffered from significant subaverage intellectual functioning that manifested during the developmental period.