Opinion ID: 1992848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of inculpatory statements made to psychiatrist

Text: Prior to the penalty phase, the State notified the court of its intention to have a State psychiatrist, Dr. Martinson, examine defendant for the purpose of rebutting the mental health mitigating factors. Dr. Martinson testified at the penalty phase and concluded that defendant did not suffer from any mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murder. His conclusions were based in part on defendant's motives for and reflection on the crime, which defendant's relayed to the doctor during an interview. Dr. Martinson recounted the exact words of the defendant during his testimony. The doctor explained that defendant stated: What led to it was my economical situation. A certain lifestyle I was used to, I couldn't have it anymore. I was doing college because I didn't really have anything better to do. I was between a rock and a hard place, this particular evening when I pondered our financial situation and I elected to go out and try to supplement the funds we were receiving from the government, At ... the point at which the crime was committed, it may be a digression in my life. Maybe bitter, resentful. I needed money at the time. We couldn't do anything we wanted to do. We couldn't eat at our favorite diner any more. First thought it would payoff. Then started looking at the next four years, the fact we were living in a bad neighborhood, I felt we needed money, she didn't, I was disappointed ... Going back to school as an adult. A little sad because coerced into doing something I didn't want to do. At no time did defense counsel request any limiting instruction concerning that statement. Defendant asserts for the first time on appeal that, especially since defendant did not testify on his own behalf, the quoting of these remarks into proof transcended proper rebuttal, transforming the remarks into proof of the (4)(g)[felony murder] aggravating factor. Therefore, defendant asserts that the admission into evidence, without any limiting instruction, of the statements made to Dr. Martinson, resulted in such undue prejudice to defendant that a vacation of his death sentence is required. This Court has held that psychiatrists retained by the State may interview defendants to rebut asserted mental defenses. State v. Whitlow, 45 N.J. 3, 16, 210 A. 2d 763 (1965). The Whitlow court added that statements made by a defendant during such an interview, even if inculpatory, are admissible, so long as those statements are necessary for the formulation of the psychiatrist's opinion. Defendant's statements were relevant to Dr. Martinson's evaluation of defendant's mental health. Nonetheless, the Whitlow court also held that although such statements are admissible, the jury [must be] fully and fairly informed as to the purpose of admitting them and to the absolute limitation of their use. Id. at 19-20, 210 A. 2d 763. No such instruction was provided. The absence of the Whitlow instruction, however, was harmless error. There was overwhelming evidence presented to prove aggravating factor c(4)(g) (that the murder was committed during a robbery). Indeed, defense counsel never seriously questioned that defendant had committed a robbery. Because the lack of the Whitlow instruction could have had no effect on the outcome of this case, we need not decide whether the defendant's failure to request a Whitlow instruction could constitute a waiver of that instruction under N.J.R.E. 105. See Brown, supra, 138 N.J. at 535, 651 A. 2d 19 (holding that N.J.R.E. 105 acknowledges that a party may wish to forego such an instruction for tactical reasons. Thus, while the court may give a limiting instruction, if warranted, despite the lack of a request, we find no support for defendant's suggestion that a court should provide an instruction despite a party's calculated decision to waive it).