Opinion ID: 1932173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the trial court err in denying defense counsel's motion for further psychiatric examination?

Text: Prior to trial, the defense filed a motion for psychiatric examination, and the court ordered such an examination. The defense later filed a motion for further psychiatric examination. At the pretrial hearing on motions, defense counsel advised the court he was having difficulty communicating with Wheeler. The court questioned Wheeler in this regard, and Wheeler told the court, All I'm saying, Judge, is I want to be tried by a jury and I'm ready to stand trial. That's all I'm saying. Whitfield already said I'm competent of standing trial so I'm ready to stand trial. That's all. Later, the court asked defense counsel if he wished to be heard on motion for further psychiatric evaluation, and counsel responded that his duty as an officer of the court required him to say there was not a significant amount of evidence that could be produced at that time. He further requested leave to produce at such time as defense was capable of producing further evidence concerning the psychiatric condition of the defendant. The purpose of § 99-13-11 Miss. Code Ann. (1972) permitting a judge to order a criminal defendant to submit to a mental examination to determine his ability to make a defense is to avoid placing an accused on trial unless he is capable of conducting a rational defense by intelligently conferring with his counsel. Caylor v. State, 437 So.2d 444, 445 (Miss. 1983); see also Tarrants v. State, 236 So.2d 360 (Miss. 1970); Frierson v. State, 165 So.2d 342 (Miss. 1964). A month prior to trial, upon motion of defense for mental evaluation, Wheeler was sent to Mississippi State Hospital, where it was determined he was competent to stand trial. Denial of the request for further mental examination to determine competency to stand trial, after a mental examination had resulted in the determination that Wheeler was competent to stand trial, is not error. Hill v. State, 432 So.2d 427 (Miss. 1983); Greenlee v. State, 437 So.2d 1010 (Miss. 1983). In addition, since the motion for further psychiatric examination was unsupported by proof, the trial court fulfilled its duty and did not abuse its discretion in denying [the] motion for further psychiatric evaluation after hearing on such motion wherein no proof was offered. Parcell v. State, 389 So.2d 1386 (Miss. 1980).