Court Opinion

ID: 9460121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:42:13.495353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:29.523849
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Here we revisit Wade v. United States, 426 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1970). Therein, we changed our definition of mental responsibility in criminal cases.
Now we are mainly concerned with the trial court’s compelling the defendant to submit to examination by court-appointed psychiatrists on the pain of losing the right to present a defense of insanity. The order appointing psy*259chiatrists and ordering examination to determine both competence to stand trial and sanity at the time of the offense was made under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 4244. It is now the law of this circuit that § 4244 does not authorize such an order. United States v. Malcolm, 475 F.2d 420 (9th Cir. 1973). The court still has the authority, as part of the inherent power of the court, to order such an examination. On the facts of this case, we find that the order did not impermissibly infringe Wade’s constitutional rights, and the court did not abuse its discretion. See also, United States v. Handy, 454 F.2d 885 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 409 U.S. 846, 93 S.Ct. 49, 34 L.Ed. 2d 86 (1972).
Appellant cannot challenge the validity of the district court’s stated sanction for not submitting to an examination by court-appointed psychiatrists, since he complied with the order compelling examination. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83, n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1969). We cannot, at this time, decide whether an order prohibiting all evidence on insanity at the time that the offense was committed, not just expert testimony, is impermissibly broad.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.