Opinion ID: 1123462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sanity commission testimony

Text: The first three witnesses called by the State were Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Roger Agre, and Dr. Charles Mac Van Valkenburg, who examined Smith to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. All three doctors testified that in their opinion Smith was malingering which Dr. Taylor described as the intentional description of signs and symptoms that the individual knows are not accurate but [with] which the individual hopes to attain some sort of goal  e.g., when a child pretends he or she has the flu on a day he or she has a test in order to avoid taking the test. In this case, Smith claimed to have suffered a severe head trauma which precluded his remembering many details. He also claimed he was unable to place himself in the proper time and place and did not know who he was. After reviewing Smith's medical records and neurological work-ups, each doctor concluded that there was no indication of head trauma. In addition, during each doctor's interview with Smith, it became clear that Smith in fact was oriented to time and place and knew who he was. Each doctor reached his diagnosis of malingering independently of the other doctors' diagnoses. In addition to the testimony regarding malingering, Dr. Taylor, who is a psychiatrist licensed to practice in Nevada, testified that Smith suffered from an anti-social personality disorder. Dr. Taylor described this disorder as a personality in which the individual lacks what we would call in lay terms a conscience. Dr. Taylor then went on to further describe anti-social personality disorders as follows: Personality disordered people, and there are 12 types of personality disorders, are people who are usually defined most adequately as people who manage to get under our skin in some way. Anti-social people can be mildly anti-social, and usually one sees them in used car lots  that's a perfect example, selling used cars. And at the very extreme levels, these are people that hopefully you will never see and they're on the back wards of the state hospitals where they have committed and will commit and can commit the most violent of crimes without a second thought, without a bit of conscience. Dr. Taylor did not testify as to the severity of Smith's anti-social personality disorder. Neither Dr. Agre nor Dr. Van Valkenburg testified regarding a personality disorder. Dr. Van Valkenburg, however, testified that he diagnosed Smith as having an alcohol dependence and a narcotics dependence in remission. These doctors' testimony was patently inadmissible. The State asserts that the doctors' testimony is analogous to evidence of flight from the scene of the crime or to evade apprehension by the authorities, and correctly points out that this court has permitted the admission of flight evidence to demonstrate consciousness of guilt or wrongful conduct. See Turner v. State, 98 Nev. 103, 107, 641 P.2d 1062, 1064 (1982); see also Santillanes v. State, 104 Nev. 699, 765 P.2d 1147 (1988). In this case, the State claims Smith attempted to convince the Sanity Commission doctors that he was incompetent to stand trial by malingering in order to avoid having to proceed to trial. According to the State, [a]ttempting to avoid trial and the inevitable judgment of one's actions is tantamount to fleeing the scene of a crime and is therefore relevant to the proceedings as evidence of consciousness of guilt. We agree that Smith's malingering could be construed as consciousness of guilt. However, as Smith suggests, if the reasoning of the State is carried further, then evidence that a defendant filed a motion to suppress his or her confession should be admitted as well. In other words, the State, under its rationale, would be able to tell a jury the defendant tried to beat this case on a technicality instead of wanting to go to trial. This is evidence of consciousness of guilt. Obviously, this is inappropriate. Further, and more importantly, the State's argument fails to take into account a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. There was no evidence presented that the doctors in question advised Smith that any statement he made would be admissible in court and that by submitting to a competency examination he was waiving his right against self-incrimination by answering the State-employed doctors' questions or that they advised him that they could be called to testify against him. Finally, the State fails altogether to address the fact that Dr. Van Valkenburg testified that he diagnosed Smith as having an alcohol dependence and a narcotics dependence in remission and that Dr. Taylor diagnosed Smith as having an anti-social personality disorder and likened him to a used car dealer at best or someone who belonged on the back wards of a mental hospital at worst because he could commit the most violent of crimes without a second thought, without a bit of conscience. This testimony was clearly inadmissible character evidence. See NRS 48.045(2). Although we conclude that the Sanity Commission doctors' testimony should have been excluded from evidence, we hold that the admission of this evidence is harmless with respect to Smith's conviction on the incest charges. [4] The considerations relevant to deciding whether error is harmless or prejudicial include whether the issue of innocence or guilt is close, the quantity and character of the error and the gravity of the crime charged. Big Pond v. State, 101 Nev. 1, 692 P.2d 1288 (1985). The evidence presented in support of the incest charges was overwhelming. The adult-victim's testimony was very compelling and was supported by other witnesses. Two friends of Smith testified. One testified that Smith bragged about the adult-victim's sexual prowess. Another testified that Smith had admitted to him that he and the adult-victim were living together as husband and wife and that they had a sexual relationship. This same individual also testified that Smith had warned him that there would be consequences if he ever disclosed that Smith had made this admission. In light of this evidence, we conclude that while the crimes at issue are grave and the quantity and character of the error is not small, `it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty' on the incest charges notwithstanding the erroneous admission of the Sanity Commission doctors' testimony. Weathers v. State, 105 Nev. 199, 202, 772 P.2d 1294, 1297 (1989); Big Pond v. State, 101 Nev. 1, 692 P.2d 1288 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Smith's incest conviction.