State of Mississippi v. Willie C. Russell, 238 So. 3d 1105

Background

Willie C. Russell was convicted of capital murder (1989) and sentenced to death; postconviction proceedings later raised an Atkins claim that he is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution.
In 2006, while facing a separate aggravated-assault charge, Russell underwent a State Hospital evaluation (WAIS-III, WRAT-4, WMT and a clinical interview) that was ordered to assess competency/sanity; the portion of the order specifically directed to an Atkins determination was vacated and participants agreed it was not a "complete Atkins assessment."
In 2012 the State moved for a court-ordered Atkins evaluation of Russell; Russell opposed compelled retesting and his counsel asserted the 2006 testing would not be a full Atkins assessment but also objected to forced additional tests.
The State's expert (Dr. Macvaugh) testified that additional intellectual, adaptive-functioning, and malingering assessment (including possibly the WAIS‑IV) were necessary to form an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty in an Atkins/death-penalty context; he declined to specify certain tests in advance for validity/ethical reasons.
The trial court denied the State's motion, concluding the 2006 testing was sufficient and that further testing would give the State an unfair forensic advantage; at the Atkins hearing only Russell's expert testified and the court found Russell intellectually disabled and vacated the death sentence.
The Supreme Court (majority) reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State an opportunity to have its expert conduct necessary testing before the Atkins hearing; remanded to permit the State's expert evaluation. A dissent argued the existing record/tests sufficed and the court acted within its discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Russell)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State's motion to evaluate Russell for Atkins	Russell contended he did not consent to additional testing and objected to compelled retesting; 2006 evaluation was not a full Atkins exam but additional testing was unnecessary or unfair	State argued the 2006 evaluation expressly did not include an Atkins determination and its expert needed additional testing (intellectual, adaptive, malingering) to form an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty	Reversed: trial court abused its discretion; State must be allowed to have its expert evaluate Russell before the Atkins hearing
Whether an Atkins determination is a legal question that can be made without adequate expert-informed testing	Russell argued existing record and prior tests/records supported the Atkins finding without further State testing	State argued Atkins decisions require substantial reliance on medical experts and the State must be permitted to obtain expert data to respond	Held: Atkins determinations are legal but must be informed by medical experts; trial court improperly substituted its judgment for the expert's view on necessary testing
Whether the State was placed in an impermissible position preventing it from presenting a rebuttal expert	Russell suggested the State could rely on existing records and collateral witnesses and chose not to present an expert	State argued its expert testified additional data was ethically required and denying testing prevented it from presenting rebuttal expert evidence	Held: Denial deprived the State of the opportunity to meaningfully respond via expert testimony; abuse of discretion to block evaluation
Whether the available 2006 test data alone were sufficient to decide Atkins	Russell relied on 1989 and 2006 IQ/achievement scores and collateral records to prove intellectual disability	State asserted the 2006 testing did not cover adaptive assessment fully and an updated intelligence test (WAIS‑IV) and malingering checks were needed in death-penalty context	Held (majority): court should defer to expert on what testing is necessary; existing data were insufficient per State's expert, and the court erred in refusing testing (dissent disagreed, finding 2006 data sufficient)

Key Cases Cited

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (holding execution of intellectually disabled persons violates the Eighth Amendment)
Chase v. State, 873 So.2d 1013 (Miss. 2004) (adopts AAIDD criteria and Mississippi framework for Atkins claims)
Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (Atkins determinations require substantial reliance on medical expertise)
Lynch v. State, 951 So.2d 549 (Miss. 2007) (experts are given discretion to choose appropriate malingering assessments; no single mandated test)
State v. Scott, 233 So.3d 253 (Miss. 2017) (clarifies experts must be free to choose methods they deem appropriate for Atkins evaluations)