Court Opinion

ID: 9762436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:23:38.813361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:34.369662
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JANUARY 14, 1991 801 S.W.2d 48 Criminal law — defense of mental disease or defect — no REASON TO BELIEVE MENTAL DISEASE WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE. — There was nothing to support the appellant’s position that a psychiatric examination was warranted except the statements of defense counsel that appellant did not appreciate the seriousness of the charges against him, which counsel attributed to the fact that appellant had only a third grade education and had an unspecified medical problem which required medication, and the appellate court found that these assertions did not per se dictate a reversal of the trial court’s finding that there was no sufficient basis to believe that mental disease or defect would become an issue. Petition for Rehearing; denied. Bill R. Holloway, for appellant. Steve Clark, Att’y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee. Steele Hays, Associate Justice. In our opinion of November 19,1990, affirming the judgment entered pursuant to appellant’s conviction on two counts involving controlled substances, we addressed three assignments of error, one of which alleged that the trial court should have granted a motion for a psychiatric examination of the appellant. Citing Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-305 (1987),werejected that contention, observing only that appellant had failed to file notice that he intended to rely upon the defense of mental disease or defect. By petition for rehearing appellant correctly points out that § 5-2-305 includes an alternative provision, irrespective of such notice, that if there is reason to believe mental disease or defect will become an issue, then the trial court shall immediately suspend all further proceedings and order such psychiatric examination or examinations as may be warranted.  We concede that our opinion failed to address the substantive argument advanced by the appellant. Accordingly, we have reviewed the issue to determine whether the trial court’s finding (that there was no sufficient basis to believe that mental disease or defect would become an issue) was clearly erroneous. The burden rested on the appellant [Andrews v. State, 265 Ark. 390, 578 S.W.2d 585 (1979)], and we find nothing in support of his position except the statements of defense counsel that appellant did not appreciate the seriousness of the charges against him, which counsel attributed to the fact that appellant had only a third grade education and had an unspecified medical problem which required medication. Accepting these assertions at face value, they do not per se dictate a reversal of the trial court’s express finding to the effect, “There’s just nothing in the record that the court can get its hands on to show even a reasonable suspicion, much less a probable cause, to order [a psychiatric examination].” Rehearing denied.