Opinion ID: 2569334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Assertion of Mental Defect Defense

Text: Hedges also contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorneys presented a mental defect defense over his opposition. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to conduct his own defense. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 45 L. Ed.2d 562, 95 S. Ct. 2525 (1975). A criminal defendant who is competent is entitled to decide whether to assert the defense of lack of criminal responsibility. Treece v. State, 313 Md. 665, 673-81, 547 A.2d 1054 (1988) (relying on Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834.). In State v. Rambo, 10 Kan. App.2d 418, 699 P.2d 542, rev. denied 237 Kan. 888 (1985), the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision not to impose an insanity defense sua sponte over defendant's objection. The decision whether to assert an insanity defense is different from tactical decisions which are for defense counsel to make. Defenses such as self-defense, coercion, entrapment, and consent share with the defense of insanity the common element of an admission that the defendant did the charged acts. The distinction lies in the result of prevailing with an insanity defense. With the other defenses, the defendant would go free. If the defense of insanity prevailed, there would be a strong likelihood that the result would be indefinite commitment of the defendant. Since Hedges was competent to stand trial, asserting an insanity defense over his objection would have violated his Sixth Amendment right. The question is whether Hedges' counsel actually asserted a mental defense. It is undisputed that Hedges' attorneys thought that Hedges was affected by his mental illness when he committed the crimes. It is also clear that his attorneys were doubtful that Hedges' mental illness reached the level or was of a character sufficient to absolve Hedges of criminal responsibility for his actions. Because Hedges opposed the assertion of a mental defect defense and because of the attorneys' doubts regarding applicability of the defense, Hedges' counsel did not have Hedges examined by an expert to testify in support of the defense. Under the circumstances, Hedges was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Affirmed.