Hajek-McClure v. State
2014 Ark. App. 690
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On May 1, 2012, Patricia Hajek-McClure shot and killed Sharren Sue Richards at an I-40 rest area; the shooting was undisputed.
- Hajek-McClure asserted the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-312 and presented expert testimony (Dr. Patricia Walz) diagnosing personality disorders and opining she suffered a mental disease at the time of the offense.
- The State presented rebuttal expert Dr. Paul DeYoub, who testified that a personality disorder (Axis II) does not constitute a mental disease under the DSM/medical practice and disputed Walz’s opinion.
- Trial court denied Hajek-McClure’s motions in limine to exclude DeYoub’s testimony and to permit broader voir dire about consequences of a not-guilty verdict; Dr. Walz’s second report (competency/current functioning) was excluded but she could testify about present impressions tied to the time of the offense.
- A jury rejected the mental-disease defense; Hajek-McClure was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 30 years. She appealed, raising three evidentiary/vior dire claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hajek-McClure) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of State expert testimony that personality disorder is not a "mental disease or defect" | Testimony explaining medical/DSM distinctions aids the jury and is proper rebuttal | DeYoub improperly invaded ultimate issue and exceeded rebuttal scope by opining personality disorders are not mental diseases | Court affirmed: DeYoub’s medical opinion was admissible, did not mandate legal conclusion, and aided the jury |
| Scope of rebuttal testimony | Rebuttal may respond to defense evidence, including written expert reports admitted into evidence | Rebuttal should be limited to matters actually testified to in defense expert’s oral testimony, not her report | Court affirmed: Walz’s written report (admitted) opened the subject; DeYoub’s rebuttal was responsive and proper |
| Voir dire on consequences of NGRI-like verdict | State: limiting such questioning was permissible and defendant did not preserve objection | Defense: counsel should have been allowed to inform jurors of legal consequences of a mental-disease verdict in voir dire | Court affirmed: defendant failed to object at trial to the limitation and accepted the jury, so claim is procedurally barred |
| Exclusion of Dr. Walz’s second report (current competency/functioning) | State: second report concerned competency/current functioning, irrelevant to insanity at time of offense | Defense: excluding the second report improperly limited expert testimony | Court affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; limited testimony to matters relating back to condition at time of offense and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Isbell v. State, 326 Ark. 17, 931 S.W.2d 74 (1996) (surprise rebuttal witness held proper where State disclosed witness)
- Schalski v. State, 322 Ark. 63, 907 S.W.2d 693 (1995) (rebuttal testimony identifying appellant’s voice proper after appellant denied offense)
- Landrum v. State, 320 Ark. 81, 894 S.W.2d 933 (1995) (character-evidence context distinguishing when State may respond)
- Birchett v. State, 289 Ark. 16, 708 S.W.2d 625 (1986) (limits on rebuttal where testimony functioned to impeach collateral matter)
- Lard v. State, 431 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. 2014) (upholding State experts’ testimony that antisocial personality disorder did not amount to a mental disease or defect)