Opinion ID: 2789508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Onset Prior to Age Eighteen

Text: ¶22. The parties dispute whether the Chase standard requires the petitioner to present evidence that adaptive functioning deficits manifested prior to age eighteen. Brown argues that “there simply is no requirement under Mississippi law that adaptive functioning deficits be present before age eighteen,” and he asserts that the Court has held that adaptive 12 functioning deficits should be measured “prior to incarceration” not “before age eighteen.” Brown is taking the Court out of context. The rationale behind the Court’s statement that adaptive functioning deficits should be measured “prior to incarceration” is that deficits in adaptive functioning should not to be measured after the defendant has been incarcerated, because inmates do not have the option to perform the activities and behaviors that are assessed. Thus, assessment of adaptive functioning after a defendant has been incarcerated likely would not be an accurate assessment of his or her abilities at the time of the crime.2 The Court clearly has held that the onset of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and adaptive functioning deficits both must manifest prior to age eighteen. This Court in Chase adopted the clinical definition of mental retardation set forth by the Supreme Court in Atkins. “Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning.” Chase, 873 So.2d at 1027 (quoting Atkins, 536 U.S. at 308 n.3, 122 S. Ct. 2242). According to the AAMR, mental retardation is characterized by: (1) “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning,” (2) “existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work,” (3) which “manifests before age 18.” Id. . . . Goodin, 102 So. 3d at 1112 (¶ 33) (emphasis added). Brown’s argument that adaptive functioning deficits do not have to be present prior to age eighteen is without merit. ¶23. Brown also argues that the judge erroneously disregarded the results of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior test because Angela did not know Brown before he turned eighteen. The 2 See Doss v. State, 19 So. 3d 690, 714 (¶ 49) (Miss. 2009) (quoting Linda Knauss and Joshua Kutinsky, Into the Briar Patch: Ethical Dilemmas Facing Psychologists Following Atkins v. Virgina, 11 Widener L. Rev. 121, 131 (2004) (“Few (if any) measures of adaptive functioning have been designed or normed for use with a correctional population. Thus, adaptive functioning prior to incarceration should be the target for assessment.”)). 13 Vineland measures a person’s ability to function in various aspects of life, and that test was given to Brown’s wife, Angela. She was asked to recall back to as close to Brown being eighteen as possible. In his order, the trial judge acknowledged that the test had been administered to Angela. The judge also recognized that the doctor who had administered the test, Dr. Zimmerman, admitted that it would have been preferable for the test to be given to someone who knew Brown before age eighteen. In his discussion of the adaptive functioning deficits, the judge mentioned Angela’s testimony about Brown, including references Angela made to things she had heard about Brown as a child and teenager. ¶24. Under Atkins and Chase, the third requirement for proving mental retardation is manifestation before age eighteen. See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 308 n.3, 318; Chase, 873 So. 2d at 1022-23 (¶¶ 43-44). In Goodin, we held that an expert may utilize any accepted test of adaptive functioning deficits, but that a retrospective analysis is necessary to show onset prior to age eighteen. Goodin, 102 So. 3d at 1114 (¶ 39). We stated: This Court has noted the importance of interviewing family and friends knowledgeable about the defendant’s past. Interviews with educators or others in the community familiar with the defendant’s behavior before age eighteen also would provide valuable information. Adaptive-functioning tests may be administered to these individuals as well. A retrospective evaluation also could include a thorough review of school records, social history, and work history, among other things. Id. The judge had before him testimony from expert psychologists who had evaluated Brown, interviewed Brown’s family members, friends, and former educators, and reviewed Brown’s school records, work history, family history, and social history. The judge also 14 heard testimony from Brown’s wife and a former teacher. He had ample evidence of Brown’s behavior and abilities before age eighteen. ¶25. The trial judge outlined the evidence and testimony that had been presented and concluded that it was not persuasive that mental retardation had manifested before Brown was eighteen: In an attempt to show onset of mental retardation prior to the onset of age eighteen, Dr. Zimmerman testified that the consumption of alcohol by Brown’s mother may have caused his mental retardation along with some head trauma Brown suffered. He also asserted that Brown’s family history of mental illness supports a finding that he is mentally retarded. Brown’s sixth grade teacher testified, and the State disputed, that Brown was in special education classes. No results of any psychological testing done before Brown was 18 was presented. On his school transcript, the California Achievement Test results showed he was reading at a second grade level in the fifth grade and was almost a fourth grade level in math[,] and the next year he improved somewhat. The [c]ourt finds that the petitioner offered no persuasive testimony [that] supports the onset of mental retardation prior to age eighteen. The judge considered and weighed all of the evidence presented and made a reasoned finding based on the evidence and testimony before him. Certainly the record does not indicate that the trial judge “ignored” the Vineland test results as Brown alleges. Although it cannot be concluded from the record that he did so, if the trial judge determined that less weight should be given to the Vineland test result because Angela did not know Brown before age eighteen or for any other reason, then he had the discretion to do so. We give deference to the trial judge as the ultimate finder of fact, and we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. ¶26. Brown’s claim that the trial judge incorrectly heightened the standard by requiring Brown to utilize only evidence from before he was eighteen is not supported by the record.