Opinion ID: 2419312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to require payment of the defense psychiatrist.

Text: The Commonwealth had agreed before trial that the defense was entitled to employ a psychiatrist to investigate potential issues concerning the accused's mental state. The court had authorized the employment and ordered the county to pay the bill. Notwithstanding, the county authorities refused to accept responsibility for payment and thereafter the psychiatrist who had been employed, who was from Ohio and could not be subpoenaed, refused to participate further in appellant's defense. There were a number of potential issues bearing on appellant's mental state at the time of the crime, relating to both the question of intentional murder and to the appropriate punishment, which supported the appointment of a psychiatrist in the circumstances of this case. Certainly, the court was acting within its authority when it decided that the psychiatrist's services should be employed, and when it ordered the County to pay for such services. KRS 31.110(1); KRS 31.200(1). In my judgment it was then incumbent upon the trial court to take necessary steps to enforce its order of payment against the County, and the failure to do so was reversible error. The recent case of Ake v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) reenforces the accused's right to access to a psychiatrist's assistance at his trial when it is clear that his mental state at the time of the offense is a substantial factor in his defense. While perhaps Ake can be distinguished in certain respects, it applies in the circumstances of this case. Likewise, the right to present evidence in mitigation when charged with a capital offense made the appointment of a psychiatrist reasonable in the circumstances of this case. See, Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). The issue here is not whether a psychiatrist should have been provided  that decision had already been made  but what should have been done when the County indicated it would refuse to pay a psychiatrist. The court's order should have been enforced against the county. Failing to do so was reversible error.