Court Opinion

ID: 9598210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:06:30.700548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:38.321697
License: Public Domain

Hill, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance in this case. However, I am unable to agree with the implication in Division 6 that Estelle v. Smith, 451 U. S. 454 (101 SC 1866, 68 LE2d 359) (1981), requires the giving of modified Miranda warning before commencement of a psychiatric examination requested by the defendant. Here, the defendant moved for the examination whereas in Estelle v. Smith, the defendant did not seek such an examination.
More significantly, in Estelle v. Smith, supra, the psychiatrist gave testimony against the defendant in the sentencing phase of a bifurcated death penalty case based upon his examination of the defendant as to the details of the crime. The Supreme Court observed that if the psychiatrist had limited his testimony to the issue of the defendant’s competency, no Fifth Amendment issue would have arisen. 451 U. S. at 465 (101 SC at 1874, 68 LE2d at 370).
In my view, where the defendant, after consultation with and advice of his counsel, seeks a court ordered psychiatric examination, Miranda warnings are not required so long as the psychiatrist limits *371his testimony to matters relating to the defendant’s competency. See Estelle v. Smith, supra.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith joins in this special concurrence.