134 So. 3d 870
Ala.2013Background
- Cate is indicted for capital murder and has not pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.
- Trial set for Oct. 24, 2011; mitigation expert raises concern about competency to stand trial.
- Sept. 29, 2011 motion to continue seeks mental examination; not limited to competency; contemplates mitigation investigation.
- Oct. 4, 2011 trial court orders inpatient exams for competency and mental state at offense.
- Nov. 8, 2011 Cate moves to amend; Rule 11.2(a)(2) issue raised; Dec. 21, 2011 order limited to present mental condition outpatient evaluation.
- Jan. 3–12, 2012 state and Cate briefing; hearing results lead to stay of examination order; February 23, 2012 order again sought mental exams.
- State seeks examinations under § 15-16-22(a); Cate argues Rule 11.2(a)(2) ties exams to defense pleadings; Cate withdraws mental evaluation request in January 2012 hearing.
- June 15, 2012 Court of Criminal Appeals denies mandamus; Cate petitions Alabama Supreme Court for writ of mandamus; court grants petition and vacates order to examine for offense-time mental state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11.2(a)(2) and § 15-16-22(a) authorize examining mental state at offense absent a defense plead | Cate: no discretion without defense plea; cannot be ordered. | State: § 15-16-22(a) imposes duty to order when defense may proceed on mental disease/defect basis. | Discretion to examine offense-time mental state not invoked without defense pleading. |
| Whether the trial court could order offense-time mental-state examination under the facts | Cate: no authority absent plea; reliance on Rule 11.2(a)(2) block. | State: § 15-16-22(a) and notice of mitigation may support order. | Court exceeded discretion; offense-time examination not authorized. |
| Whether mitigation intention suffices to trigger examination under § 15-16-22(a) | Cate did not intend to use mental state to defend criminal responsibility; no trigger. | State: mitigation intent demonstrates notice that mental state may be used at sentencing and trial. | Mitigation intent does not equal defense to criminal responsibility; no trigger. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte AmSouth Bank, N.A., 589 So.2d 715 (Ala.1991) (mandamus standards and extraordinary relief)
- Ex parte Day, 584 So.2d 493 (Ala.1991) (mandamus prerequisites)
- Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501 (Ala.1993) (presiding court duties and remedies)
- Ex parte LaFlore, 445 So.2d 932 (Ala.1983) (limits on capital-defense-related examinations)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S.1966) (due process and competency evaluations)
- Pierce v. State, 293 So.2d 483 (Ala.1974) (insanity-related examinations and procedures)
- Edgerson v. State, 302 So.2d 556 (Ala.1974) (competency and sanity evaluations standards)
- Jones v. State, 43 So.3d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (plea timing and mental-state examinations; district vs circuit court Pleas)