Legal Document

492 U.S. 680 109 S.Ct. 3146 106 L.Ed.2d 551 David Lee POWELLv.TEXAS. No. 88-6801. July 3, 1989. PER CURIAM. 1 This case—and, indeed, this precise question—is now before the Court for second time. Last Term, petitioner sought review of decision Texas Criminal Appeals affirming his sentence death, asserting that evidence was received during penalty phase trial in contravention Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. After issuing our Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 249, 108 1792, 100 284 (1988), we granted petition a writ certiorari, vacated court's judgment, remanded further consideration light Satterwhite. 487 1230, 2891, 101 926 (1988). On remand, court reinstated its prior decision. Because is inconsistent with decisions Estelle Smith, 451 454, 1866, 68 359 (1981), grant motion leave to proceed forma pauperis certiorari reverse judgment Appeals. 2 In Smith held capital defendant's right against compelled self-incrimination precludes state from subjecting him psychiatric examination concerning future dangerousness without first informing defendant he has remain silent anything says can be used at sentencing proceeding. Id., 461-469, S.Ct., 1872-1876. We also held—and respect Court's unanimous—that, once formally charged, counsel such an notif ing "the [will] encompass issue their client's dangerousness." 471, 1877. See id., 474, 1878-1879 (Stewart, J., concurring judgment); ibid. (REHNQUIST, judgment). Term's inSatterwhite reaffirmed protection, emphasizing "for charged crime, whether submit designed determine 'literally life or death matter' which should not required face 'the guiding hand counsel.' " U.S., 254, 1796 (citations omitted). 3 case there no dispute on day petitioner's arrest court, State's request, ordered conducted by Dr. Richard Coons psychologist Coons' choice competency stand sanity time offense. examined four occasions, George Parker, clinical psychologist, tested two additional occasions. It undisputed neither nor attorney notified would informed silent. Finally, it uncontested that, over objection, Drs. Parker testified hearing based these examinations they were view "would commit acts violence constitute continuing threat society." 742 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (en banc). The jury persuaded fact, sentenced death.1 4 Despite close similarity between facts those original declined vacate sentence. S.W.2d, 360. That premised alternative holdings: rights violated, 357-359, and, even if were, any error harmless, 359-360. initial Appeals' Satterwhite, earlier holding violated. 767 759 (1989) simply withdrew portion opinion relied harmless-error analysis, observing analysis applied "denounced" was, event, "superfluous disposition constituted nothing more than obiter dictum." 762. But, made clear "initial determination error, as well remaining holdings [the] opinion, . remain[ed] undisturbed." Ibid. dissent, Judge Clinton wrote consider "that 'solely concerned harmless error,' disregard much Part II finding violation assistance counsel." 763. He observed "it most unlikely Supreme remand cause us reconsider superfluous albeit utterly flawed[,] [u]nless believed 'there admitting testimony Coon[s] Parker.' 764 (citation 5 Cr minal violated conclusion waived introducing support defense insanity. 357-358. only object use rebut defense, but satisfy burden proving separate dangerousness. 358-359. conflated analyses, provided right, must reversed.2 6 principal found proposition Circuit's Battie Estelle, 655 F.2d 692 (1981). case, suggested introduces establish mental-status government may justified using notwithstanding assertion self-incrimination. 700-702. circumstances, might waiver privilege, just privilege himself took stand. 701-702, n. 22. explained "any imposed result overwhelming difficulty responding own accused need prevent fraudulent mental defenses." 702 (footnote 7 Language contained later Buchanan Kentucky, 483 402, 107 2906, 97 336 (1987), provides some discussion waiver. "[w]hen asserts insanity supporting testimony, silence deprive State effective means controverting proof interjected into case." 465, 1874. And requests order prove waives raise challenge prosecution's obtained through defense. 422-423, 2917-2918. 8 Significantly, dealing exclusively passing upon challenge. F.2d, 694, 2. Likewise, discussions deal solely Indeed, both separately discuss issues so confuse distinct analyses apply. No mention either discussing right. good reason. While unfair permit allowing certainly require provide notice examining T us, surprise prosecution eve raising supported ordering continuance directing state-appointed psychiatrist. There justification, however, receive examination. 9 distinction appropriate recognized 421-424, 2916-2918. conclusion, did suffice resolve claim. Thus, section went address issue, concluding knew what scope place. 424-425, 2919. requested Buchanan. 424, 2918. contrast, know involve dangerousness.3 10 deciding concentrated almost claim exclusion contention have been Moreover, after Amendment, failed give attention taken deprivation counsel, because basis hold control accordingly, 11 ordered. Under law, unless proves beyond reasonable doubt "there probability criminal Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 37.071(b)(2) (Vernon Supp.1989). therefore occasion guilt extends well. Unlike Buchanan, place intended examinations. Most significantly, although recently rendered direct appeal, tried convicted decided. had anticipated decision, open door "use psychological rebuttal." 425, 2919 Nothing other Court, suggests opens admission stage trial.

Classification Label: 0