State v. Aita Gurung, 251 A.3d 572

Defendant Aita Gurung is charged with first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder after an October 2017 attack; he speaks primarily Nepali and required interpreters at court proceedings.
Court-ordered evaluations: Dr. Paul Cotton (used Nepali interpreter) found competency to stand trial but insanity at time of offense; Dr. Albert Drukteinis (did not use an interpreter) also concluded insanity; defendant asserted an insanity defense and listed Drukteinis as a defense witness.
The Chittenden State’s Attorney dismissed charges without prejudice citing inability to rebut the insanity defense; the Vermont Attorney General later refiled the same charges.
The AG sought a court-ordered mental examination by its own expert (Dr. Catherine Lewis), citing concerns about Drukteinis’s methodology (including failure to use an interpreter) and lack of access to Drukteinis’s cooperation.
The trial court limited the hearing to whether Drukteinis was available, excluded Dr. Lewis’s testimony, and denied the AG’s motion, reasoning Rule 16.1(a)(1)(I) permits only one State-ordered sanity exam; it also denied reconsideration.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed: it held Rule 16.1(a)(1)(I) does not bar a second reasonable State-ordered mental examination and found the trial court abused its discretion by precluding AG testimony; the case was remanded for a new evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State/AG)	Defendant's Argument (Gurung)	Held
Whether Rule 16.1(a)(1)(I) limits the State to a single mental-health examination	Rule does not limit number of reasonable examinations; AG is free to seek its own expert	Rule’s singular "a" limits the State to one examination; same sovereign (State) already had an exam	Rule does not prohibit the State from seeking more than one reasonable mental exam (reversed)
Whether the trial court abused discretion by barring AG from presenting Dr. Lewis’s testimony on reasonableness of a second exam	AG needed to present expert testimony showing methodological problems (e.g., no interpreter) to justify a second exam	Court correctly limited evidence; defendant’s rights and Fifth Amendment protections weigh against compelled repeated exams	Trial court abused its discretion by precluding Dr. Lewis’s testimony; remand for a new hearing to receive evidence on reasonableness
Whether the AG’s prosecution is a separate prosecution from the earlier State’s Attorney prosecution	AG argued it matters less because Rule doesn’t preclude multiple exams; also practical need to consult its own expert	Gurung argued there was only one State prosecution and Rule allows only one State-ordered exam	Court did not need to decide whether prosecutions were the same; held Rule’s language alone does not bar a second exam

State v. Bushey, 513 A.2d 1177 (recognizes Fifth Amendment privilege applies to compelled psychiatric examinations)
State v. Sharrow, 175 A.3d 504 (addresses one court-ordered competency exam under statutory language; not dispositive here)
People v. Williams, 505 N.Y.S.2d 807 (interprets singular statutory language to permit multiple sanity examinations where reasonable)
DeLand v. Uintah County, 945 P.2d 172 (applies rule that singular words may include plural; supports construction allowing multiple acts/events)
State v. LeBlanc, 759 A.2d 991 (principle that courts should not add words omitted by drafters when interpreting statutes/rules)