Opinion ID: 1811437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Guidelines for evidentiary hearing to determine mental retardation.

Text: The specifics of remanding a case on an Atkins claim is res nova in Louisiana and there is little jurisprudence to lend guidance. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of mental retardation with guidance as to how to conduct such a hearing. In the interim between this opinion and legislative action on the subject, this court instructs the trial courts to treat the issue procedurally as they would treat pre-trial competency hearings, for which statutory criteria already exist in Louisiana. See LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 641 et seq. This procedure should be appropriately modified when necessary to address the particulars of assessing mental retardation. [33] For example, LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 644 governs the appointment of a sanity commission and the examination of the defendant. In pertinent part, LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 644(A) provides: Within seven days after a mental examination is ordered, the court shall appoint a sanity commission to examine and report upon the mental condition of the defendant. The sanity commission shall consist of at least two and not more than three physicians who are licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana. We note that instead of physicians, experts with the appropriate expertise to diagnose mental retardation shall be utilized. In cases in which there must be a remand based on Atkins, this procedure will allow for court-appointed experts to examine the defendant and determine if indeed he meets the criteria for mental retardation established in LSA-R.S. 23:381. In addition, LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 646 also gives the State and the defendant the right to an independent mental examination by an expert of their choice, a procedure which would also be beneficial in these matters. However, the trial court must not rely so extensively upon this expert testimony as to commit the ultimate decision of mental retardation to the experts. See State v. Snyder, 98-1078, p. 26 (La.4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832, 852, citing State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129, 1137 (La. 1977). The code also provides for a contradictory hearing, with LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 647 stating: The issue of the defendant's mental capacity to proceed [or in this case, the issue of whether or not the defendant is mentally retarded under applicable standards] shall be determined by the court in a contradictory hearing. The report of the sanity commission is admissible in evidence at the hearing, and members of the sanity commission may be called as witnesses by the court, the defense, or the district attorney. Regardless of who calls them as witnesses, the members of the commission are subject to cross-examination by the defense, by the district attorney, and by the court. Other evidence pertaining to the defendant's mental capacity to proceed may be introduced at the hearing by the defense and by the district attorney. Precedent exists for using a sanity commission to grapple with the question of mental retardation. This court's seminal decision in State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129 (La.1977) ( on reh'g ), involved the question of whether the defendant's mental retardation rendered him incompetent to stand trial. This court ultimately remanded for a second sanity hearing, to be held following a complete reexamination of the defendant; we concluded the trial court had failed to apply the appropriate standard in assessing defendant's capacity to proceed and that the sketchy reports of the examining physicians did not justify a decision as to defendant's sanity at that time. Bennett, 345 So.2d at 1136. Bennett thereby acknowledged the appropriateness of using a sanity commission convened under LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 644 to address, albeit in the context of the Due Process Clause and not under the Eighth Amendment, the question of a defendant's mental retardation. The evidentiary standard for the defendant to meet in proving that he is mentally retarded poses an important question. Our survey of states that possess statutes barring execution of the mentally retarded reveals some states require the defendant prove his status by a preponderance of the evidence, while other states require clear and convincing evidence. For purposes of the Due Process Clause and the question of a defendant's competency to stand trial, the Supreme Court has made clear that states may require only the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996); see State v. Frank, 96-1136 (La.10/4/96), 679 So.2d 1365, 1366 ( Cooper has returned Louisiana to this Court's jurisprudential rule that a criminal defendant need prove his incapacity to proceed only by a clear preponderance of the evidence. [34] ). In the absence of any guidance from the Supreme Court, this court adopts the preponderance of evidence standard in the Atkins context as well. Differing standards of proof tend to allocate the risk of erroneous fact finding to either the State or the defendant. See Cooper, 517 U.S. at 362-363, 116 S.Ct. at 1381 (The more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear, the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision.). (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) Requiring a defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence he is exempt from capital punishment by reason of mental retardation would significantly increase the risk of an erroneous determination that he is not mentally retarded. Clearly, in the Atkins context, the State may bear the consequences of an erroneous determination that the defendant is mentally retarded (life imprisonment at hard labor) far more readily than the defendant of an erroneous determination that he is not mentally retarded. As to the forum in which the Atkins issue is litigated, it is significant that the majority of states which have provided a statutory exemption from capital punishment for the mentally retarded have made the finding of mental retardation a matter for the trial judge as opposed to the jury. [35] The better practice under Atkins is reflected by the procedure of such states as Indiana and Missouri, where the court makes a pre-trial determination of whether the defendant is mentally retarded and thereby spares both the State and the defendant the onerous burden of a futile bifurcated capital sentencing procedure. In light of the fact that this defendant's trial has already taken place, the allocation to the court of the determination of the issue of his mental retardation avoids the onerous burden of a second penalty phase. [36]