State v. Hanson
271 P.3d 712
Idaho2012Background
- Hanson convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years with three years fixed.
- At sentencing, Hanson exercised his Fifth Amendment right and refused to participate in a presentence investigation (PSI).
- District court denied Hansen's requests for a psychological evaluation under I.C. § 19-2522 and for a competency evaluation.
- The PSI was prepared using information from sources including a 1982 Utah PSI and Hanson’s jail records, despite his refusal to participate in the PSI.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for resentencing; the State sought review and this Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court must order a psychological evaluation under I.C. § 19-2522 | Hanson argued mental condition is a significant factor and evaluation is mandatory | Hanson asserted waiver issues invalidated denial and that evaluation is necessary | Yes; court erred by not ordering evaluation |
| Whether a defendant may waive Fifth Amendment rights to a psychological evaluation without waiving rights to the PSI | Hanson waived Fifth Amendment rights to the evaluation but not to the PSI | The waiver should be treated as one single subject | Waiver to a psychological evaluation does not waive rights to PSI |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a competency evaluation | Counsel sought competency evaluation due to communication difficulties | Court reasonably assessed ability to assist in defense | No; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coonts, 137 Idaho 150, 44 P.3d 1205 (Ct.App.2002) (mandatory psychological evaluation when mental condition is significant at sentencing)
- State v. McFarland, 125 Idaho 876, 876 P.2d 158 (Ct.App.1994) (psychological evaluation required when mental condition is a significant factor at sentencing)
- State v. Schultz, 149 Idaho 285, 233 P.3d 732 (Ct.App.2010) (considers significance of mental condition at sentencing)
- Banbury, 145 Idaho 265, 178 P.3d 630 (Ct.App.2007) (presence of mental condition as factor at sentencing; informs need for evaluation)
- Harper, 129 Idaho 86, 922 P.2d 383 (1996) (psychological evaluation aids sentencing; not all errors harmless)
- Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 149 P.3d 833 (2006) ( Fifth Amendment applies to psychological evaluation; selective waiver not allowed)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 119 S. Ct. 1307 (1999) (witness may not selectively waive Fifth Amendment in a single proceeding)
- Drape r, State v. Draper, 151 Idaho 576, 261 P.3d 853 (2011) (PSI primary purpose to assist sentencing; overlap with psych eval limited)