Opinion ID: 4198315
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Professional Mental Health Evidence

Text: Defense counsel Wishart submitted written reports by three different mental health professionals—Dr. John Petrich, a psychiatrist; Dr. Martin Gutride, a psychologist; and Dr. John Chappel, a psychiatrist. Wishart called none of the three to give live testimony. Dr. Petrich’s evaluation of Petrocelli’s mental health and future dangerousness was the most favorable to Petrocelli, but his evaluation was of limited use to the defense. Petrich had evaluated Petrocelli in June 1981, when Petrocelli was in jail in Washington State on the kidnaping charge, prior to killing Barker and Wilson. PETROCELLI V. BAKER 13 Drs. Gutride and Chappel evaluated Petrocelli in July 1982, after he had killed Barker and while he was in jail waiting to stand trial for killing Wilson. Gutride reported that Petrocelli was adopted at age two and a half, and had been physically abused by his biological mother. Petrocelli’s adoptive mother died when Petrocelli was seventeen, and Petrocelli attempted suicide several months after the funeral. After his adoptive mother’s death, he became close to his adoptive father for a brief time, but fell out of touch after his father remarried. Gutride reported that Petrocelli cried when he spoke about having lost contact with his father. Petrocelli was “placed in a military academy at age twelve because of discipline problems,” and he joined the Marines at about age seventeen. While in the Marines, Petrocelli was arrested for fighting with policemen while drunk; shortly thereafter, he began going AWOL. He was eventually given a dishonorable discharge. Sometime around 1974, Petrocelli moved to Washington State, began working in a steel mill, and became, by his own admission, “increasingly unstable.” In 1976, he attempted suicide. In 1977, he was arrested for theft but fled before his trial. He became a professional gambler in Reno, Nevada, and began abusing alcohol and drugs. He was arrested in 1980 for kidnaping Barker. Dr. Gutride reported that Petrocelli “cried openly” during the interview and that his “distraught behavior had the quality of his practically begging for help.” “[H]e desperately wants to know what is the matter with him and why he did the things he is charged with. He doesn’t deny responsibility, but says he can’t remember most of the circumstances surrounding the various crimes.” According to Gutride, Petrocelli told him he “ha[d] called crisis lines in every city, but been unable to get any help” and “ha[d] talked with psychiatrists while in other jails and been put off.” 14 PETROCELLI V. BAKER Dr. Gutride reported that throughout the interview, Petrocelli’s “thought processes were logical and coherent, memory seemed good, but selective, and intelligence seemed quite adequate.” However, “[o]nce formal testing began, the client seemed to lose those qualities. The difference was so striking that he appeared to be faking ‘bad.’” Gutride concluded that Petrocelli was “clearly a lot brighter than his test scores reflect.” Dr. Gutride concluded that Petrocelli is “very impulsive,” has “a high potential for violence,” is “very mistrustful of others,” and may be “a relatively high suicide risk.” Gutride diagnosed Petrocelli with “antisocial personality with paranoid features.” He noted that “[t]he personal distress he exhibited during the interview seems genuine and the client may truly desire some mental health treatment,” though his “ability to profit from such treatment is questionable” because of his distrust of others. Gutride concluded by noting that Petrocelli “can be quite dangerous to others as well as himself and treatment should be offered in a setting where the client can be closely monitored.” Dr. Chappel reported some of the same family background information that Dr. Gutride reported. Chappel further reported that Petrocelli’s arrest for kidnaping was “very traumatic” for him. Petrocelli “repeatedly asked for help” while in jail in Seattle, was seen by Dr. Petrich, and was put on an antipsychotic drug that helped him sleep. Petrocelli apparently attempted to commit suicide shortly afterwards, and was put in solitary confinement as a result. Chappel reported that Petrocelli “viewed the experience as one of asking for help and not getting it.” He recounted Petrocelli’s description of shooting Barker. Petrocelli asserted that “there were times when a ‘black box’ of control PETROCELLI V. BAKER 15 in his head opened and a voice or an impulse told him to kill or do some other destructive act,” but that he still did not “understand why his girlfriend had to die.” Petrocelli “expresse[d] a wish for further evaluation or treatment so he [could] find out whether or not he killed on purpose.” Dr. Chappel concluded that Petrocelli was both “depressed and angry,” with the depression “expressed through sobbing and tears,” as well as various suicide attempts. His anger was directed “primarily at the police and the district attorneys.” “He considers the Washoe County District Attorney as premeditating his murder. When this rage occurs [he] threatens to kill the prosecutor.” Chappel diagnosed Petrocelli with impulse control disorder and antisocial personality disorder. He wrote that “a more extensive evaluation” would be useful in order for Petrocelli “to have a better understanding of the reasons for his loss of impulse control and his reason for killing someone who was close to him.” Chappel observed that if Petrocelli were “not sentenced to death and executed . . . in his current state of mind he is very dangerous to those people to whom his rage is directed. A period of evaluation and a trial of treatment might serve a useful purpose in preventing any further homicidal outbursts of rage on his part.” After these three written reports were admitted into evidence, Prosecutor Laxalt called Dr. Gutride to the stand. Gutride’s testimony was very short, filling just under two pages of transcript. In an attempt to undermine Gutride’s diagnosis and the portions of his report that were favorable to Petrocelli, Laxalt drew Gutride’s attention to his conclusion that Petrocelli had been “faking ‘bad.’” Laxalt asked Gutride, “Despite the faking on the IQ test, et cetera, do you think this is a valid diagnosis?” Gutride replied that he could 16 PETROCELLI V. BAKER substantiate his diagnosis of “unsocial with paranoid tendencies” with a “long history.” Gutride stated that the diagnosis “does not imply an individual is unable to think properly or conduct themselves conventionally. It relates mostly to a style of living.” Prosecutor Laxalt then called Dr. Gerow to the stand. Defense counsel Wishart objected on the grounds of psychiatrist-patient privilege, but the court overruled the objection. Laxalt introduced no written report by Gerow. Gerow testified that he had interviewed Petrocelli for two hours on April 21, and that as a result of his interview he had formed an opinion of Petrocelli’s “mental and emotional personality traits.” Gerow said that he agreed with Drs. Chappel and Gutride’s diagnosis of “antisocial personality.” However, Gerow referred to it as a “psychopathic” rather than an “antisocial” personality. Gerow described Petrocelli’s personality as “rare,” and as the personality of someone “who is very callous and selfish, someone unreliable and irresponsible.” He testified that individuals with psychopathic personalities “are repeatedly in trouble with the law,” because they “don’t believe in the rules that society set up” and do not learn from punishment. He testified that “[t]here is no treatment at all” for psychopathic personality, that the condition worsens during adolescent years, and that it “persists throughout life.” Gerow testified that the violence potential of a psychopathic “varies,” but that the propensity for further violence is “quite high” for individuals with a history of violence. Gerow testified that being “a psychopathic” was an incurable “emotional disturbance.” Gerow concluded his direct examination testimony by stating unequivocally, “There is no cure.” PETROCELLI V. BAKER 17 3. Jury Instructions, Final Argument, and Verdict Before final penalty-phase arguments, the judge instructed the jury. Jury Instruction 5 provided, “If the penalty is fixed at life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the defendant shall not be eligible for parole.” However, the instruction continued, indicating that the State Board of Pardon Commissioners had the power to release Petrocelli from prison even if the jury returned a sentence of life imprisonment without parole: Under the laws of the State of Nevada, any sentence imposed by the jury may be reviewed by the State Board of Pardon Commissioners. Whatever sentence you return in your verdict, this Court will impose that sentence. Whether or not the State Board of Pardon Commissioners upon review, if requested by the defendant, would change that sentence, this Court has no way of knowing. The State Board of Pardon Commissioners, however, would have the power to modify any sentence at a later date. In his closing argument, Prosecutor Laxalt emphasized Dr. Gerow’s testimony, Petrocelli’s incurability, and the possibility that the Board of Pardon Commissioners could release Petrocelli from prison. Laxalt maintained that Petrocelli “is, has been, and will forever remain a cool unfeeling, callous, individual, and a cold-blooded thief and killer.” “He will never change.” He continued, “Dr. Gerow has said there is no treatment; he will be a psychopathic personality, unfortunately.” “Extreme mental or emotional disturbance” cannot be a mitigating circumstance because 18 PETROCELLI V. BAKER such disturbance implies that “there is treatment available for this person. What psychopath means, essentially, is a mean, bad person who has never changed and who will continue to victimize.” “[N]o society, no community, no county, no city, no state, should ever have to risk again Tracy Petrocelli on the street.” In his rebuttal argument, Prosecutor Laxalt pointed to the reports of Drs. Chappel and Gutride, noting that each had discussed the possibility of treatment: “That a period of evaluation and a time of treatment might serve a reasonable purpose. . . . Do we take that chance?” He answered this question by emphasizing Dr. Gerow’s testimony. “[H]e will not learn from punishment. He will not learn, he cannot learn.” Invoking the possibility of Petrocelli’s release from prison, Laxalt concluded: I ask you to consider years down the road when the decisions are being made at the Pardons Board and the Parole Board and we have all gone our separate ways and Mr. Petrocelli is there, the sole person applying for the pardon or applying for parole crying tears of remorse and telling the people how it wasn’t he who was the murderer of Mr. Wilson it was an accident and he got railroaded, and telling people that it wasn’t he who was the murderer of Melanie it was an accident, and he was railroaded. . . . Because he will be there. He will be there. . . . That’s a sad fact, but it’s to be faced. PETROCELLI V. BAKER 19 Laxalt asked that the jury “return a verdict of death for Mr. Tracy Petrocelli, a cold-blooded killer, who will always remain so.” The jury returned a sentence of death.