Kansas v. Cheever
571 U.S. 87
SCOTUS2013Background
- Cheever killed a sheriff and fired at officers after methamphetamine use and a pending arrest.
- Kansas sought death penalty; after Kansas death-penalty scheme was deemed unconstitutional, charges were dismissed and federal prosecution occurred, then later halted.
- Cheever planned to introduce expert evidence that methamphetamine intoxication negated specific intent; the federal court ordered a psychiatric evaluation (Welner).
- Cheever was tried in Kansas state court; defense offered expert Evans linking brain damage from long-term meth use and acute intoxication.
- State sought to introduce Welner’s testimony in rebuttal; defense argued it violated the Fifth Amendment because the examination was coercive and not initiated by Cheever.
- Kansas Supreme Court vacated the conviction, relying on Estelle v. Smith and distinguishing Buchanan, then this Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May rebuttal psychiatric evidence be admitted | Cheever relied on Estelle; voluntary intoxication not waivable. | Buchanan limits rebuttal to certain mental-status defenses; Kansas rule too broad. | Yes; Buchanan governs rebuttal evidence and allows Welner to rebut Cheever’s mental-status defense. |
| Scope of Fifth Amendment in rebuttal | Welner’s testimony intrudes on Fifth Amendment rights. | Rebuttal evidence necessary to determine truth; not testimonial coercion. | Fifth Amendment permits rebuttal evidence from a court-ordered examination when defense introduced mental-status evidence. |
| Temporary intoxication vs mental-status defense | Kansas treated intoxication as not a mental disease/defect under state law. | Mental-status is broader; Buchanan applies regardless of temporary status. | Mental-status defense includes intoxication; Buchanan applies to permit rebuttal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987) (rebuttal allowed when defense presents mental-status evidence)
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981) (court-ordered exam used against defendant who did not initiate it)
- Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U.S. 304 (1900) (cross-examination limits after defendant testifies)
- Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958) (privilege and cross-examination principles guiding testimony)
- United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (support for rebuttal evidence when expert testimony is involved)
- Powell v. Texas, 492 U.S. 680 (1989) (rebuttal limitations discussed in context of insanity/mental-status defense)
- Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) (reaffirmed constitutionality of Kansas death-penalty statute)