433 P.3d 1113
Alaska2018Background
- Defendant Conar L. Groppel, charged with multiple violent offenses, filed notice he might rely on diminished capacity and later sought competency/culpability exams, triggering AS 12.47.070.
- AS 12.47.070 requires the court to appoint at least two qualified psychiatrists or two forensic psychologists (ABFP‑certified) to examine and report on a defendant when mental condition is at issue.
- The superior court found API’s evaluating psychologist lacked ABFP certification and concluded API had no qualified psychiatrists, so it planned to appoint two outside experts and ordered each party to bear its expert’s cost.
- The State and Groppel cross‑appealed the cost allocation; the Court of Appeals certified the question to the Alaska Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court vacated the superior court order and held: (1) AS 12.47.070 experts are neutral court experts (not party experts); (2) the court should appoint API clinicians if API employs statutorily qualified experts; (3) if API cannot provide qualified experts, the court must appoint neutral outside experts and the Alaska Court System must pay their fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who do AS 12.47.070 examiners serve? | State: experts are court‑appointed neutral examiners (alternative: Court System argues Court System pays). | Groppel/OPA: experts serve court; OPA argued Court System should pay for experts. | Held: Experts serve the court as neutral expert witnesses, report to the court, not parties. |
| Who should the court appoint? | State: historically API performs exams; court should appoint API if possible. | Court/System initially split costs and intended party‑selected experts. | Held: Court must appoint qualified API psychiatrists/psychologists if API has statutorily qualified staff; otherwise appoint neutral non‑API experts. |
| What triggers appointment from outside API? | State: appointment outside API only if API lacks qualified staff. | OPA: Court System should generally pay for outside experts. | Held: If API lacks qualified experts or a legitimate reason prevents API performing exams, court shall appoint non‑API experts. |
| Who pays for non‑API experts? | State (at oral argument): Court System should pay. | Superior court had ordered each party to pay one expert; OPA argued Court System must pay. | Held: The Alaska Court System must pay costs for court‑appointed non‑API experts; superior court’s split‑cost order was error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Korkow, 314 P.3d 560 (Alaska 2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Darrow, 403 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2017) (rules for construing statutes with legislative history)
- Schade v. State, 512 P.2d 907 (Alaska 1973) (discussing Alaska’s 1972 adoption of Model Penal Code ideas for insanity defenses)
- Pope v. State, 478 P.2d 801 (Alaska 1970) (context on Alaska insanity‑defense jurisprudence)
- Crawford v. State, 404 P.3d 204 (Alaska App. 2017) (public defender/OPA duty to provide necessary incidentals of representation, including payment for experts)