Court Opinion

ID: 9700843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:51:01.381316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:15.121040
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
dissenting.
Ordinarily, we do not evaluate the correctness of the fact-finder’s reliance on and preference for one witness’s testimony over another’s. But every rule has its exception and I believe this case provokes the exception, not the rule. In my opinion, the insufficient weight given Dr. Schmidt’s testimony by the trial court was clear error. Therefore, I dissent.
An appellate court “should take a hard look at the trial judge’s ultimate conclusion and not allow the talisman of clearly erroneous to substitute for thoroughgoing appellate review of quasi-legal issues.” United States v. Makris, 535 F.2d 899, 907 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 954, 97 S.Ct. 1598, 51 L.Ed.2d 803 (1977).
*72As the Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Hoskie, 950 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir.1991), the weight afforded by the trial court to expert testimony regarding the competency of the defendant to stand trial may constitute clear eiTor. The Hoskie court stated:
“In the present case ... the two experts agree about Hoskie’s diagnosis and relate similar information regarding Hoskie’s ability to comprehend the trial process immediately following simple explanations. They simply disagree as to the ultimate question of Hoskie’s competency. Under those circumstances, because there is nothing in Dr. Grossman’s report or testimony to refute the defense evidence that even Hoskie’s rudimentary understanding vanished within minutes after the explanations, and because of Dr. Grossman’s heavy reliance on Hoskie’s ability to perform relatively mechanical functions as evidence of competency, we conclude that it was clear error to give greater weight to the report and testimony than to that of Dr. Tatro.” Id. at 1394.
The case before us is similar to Hoskie. Two psychiatrists, Drs. Sharbo and Ulrich, and Dr. Schmidt, a psychologist, examined and evaluated the defendant. All three agreed that the defendant, despite a long history of mental illness, had a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. All three also agreed that the defendant’s mental illness caused him to tell elaborate and detailed lies. Like the experts in Hoskie, the doctors’ opinions vary substantially only in their ultimate conclusions as to the defendant’s ability “to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam).
Because the reports of Drs. Sharbo and Ulrich do not refute the findings of all three experts that the defendant could not convey consistent information and held several fixed delusions, I would conclude that the trial court clearly erred in affording greater weight to the reports and testimony of Drs. Sharbo and Ulrich on these issues.
I am also uneasy about the timing of the reports of the various experts, a factor that the trial court should have considered. See Northern Mariana Islands v. Mendiola, 976 F.2d 475, 479 n. 3 (9th Cir.1992) [“[A] competency determination may not be based on out-of-date psychological evaluations.”]; People v. McPeters, 2 Cal. 4th 1148, 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 834, 841 n. 1, 832 P.2d 146, 154 n. 1 (1992) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1865, 123 L.Ed.2d 486 (1993) [indicating that four- to six-month-old reports regarding defendant’s competency were stale].
The competency hearing was held in June 1992. Dr. Schmidt had examined the defendant toward the end of January 1992; Dr. Ulrich, in early March of 1992; and Dr. Sharbo, back in July of 1991. Additionally, of the three experts, Dr. Schmidt was the most familiar with the defendant, having examined, tested and treated him when the defendant was a patient in the State Hospital years earlier. See United States v. Birdsell, 775 F.2d 645, 650-51 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1119, 106 S.Ct. 1979, 90 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986) [finding that a trial court reasonably may rely on the opinion of the expert who spent more time with the defendant]. Admittedly, my discomfort over both the timing of the examinations and the disregard of Dr. Schmidt’s familiarity with the defendant would not, by themselves, justify this dissent. But, their cumulative impact contributes to my firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made about the competency of the defendant to stand trial. I would reverse.