Engle v. State

Munker, Leonard D. State Public Defend- ENGLE, (Defendant), Weerts, Appellant er Steven E. Sr. Asst. Mark Public Defender, appellant.

v. Joseph Gen., B. Meyer, Atty. John W. Wyoming, STATE Renneisen, Gen., Deputy Atty. Karen A. (Plaintiff). Appellee Byrne, Gen., Atty. Sr. Asst. and Patrick M. No. 88-123. Anderson, Legal Intern, appellee. Supreme Wyoming. Court of CARDINE, C.J., Before

May 1989. THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

URBIGKIT, Justice.

Mark Engle (appellant), E.' unem- ployed twenty-four year transient, old was felony theft, sentenced auto and his appeal presents procedural now and docu- mentary sufficiency judicial determina- competency tion of either his to stand trial toor be convicted.

I. FACTS 11, 1987, September

On Nick Stovall parked Casper at a store in to purchase an ice cream cone. On parking return to the lot, his gone. 1979 GMC Suburban A vicinity witness in the saw the vehicle be- ing speed driven around a corner at a fast adjacent and skid into an tree. The driver out, drunk, got appeared to be looked at at the damage, witnesses scene and vehicle got back in away. the vehicle and drove later, An so point hour or at a thirty about miles Douglas, high- east town toward way patrolman stopped the vehicle because report (Report Every of a REDDI Drunk Immediately) Driver and his observation of erratic, swerving general driving. arresting officer weapon drew his backup. called for Circumstances resulting strangeness arrest indicated behavior, if not intoxication. driver, Appellant, as the was arrested upon confirmation of theft and vehicle charged felony auto theft joyriding misdemeanor. When thereafter court, arraigned appellant, in district as an indigent, provided appointed Thereafter, pleaded guilty. and first 2, 1987, stipulated on November order 1304 prior knowledge he had no of that had entered the district court

approved and evaluation, coming his to provided: not informed that he had been of this Defendant, by and NOW COMES being attorney, objected to he appointed attorney, through his court evaluation; undergo not here and would Yreeland, hereby and moves Jack Vreeland, pleas enter his of attorney, Court to His Mr. was contact- ed, of mental illness and triable had and he stated that indeed he deficiency, or by reason of mental illness evaluation with his client discussed the by the stipulation did, State fact, and in know that he was and he Crank, through Patrick Wyoming and being hospital. He further sent to Attorney, and the Assistant District of the difficulties he explained that one premis- being duly apprised Court working had the client is that has in in it would be the best es FINDS that at different presents different stories he justice that the Defendant be interest the same set of circumstanc- times about Wyoming State transported to the [H]os- impossible know and it has been es pital at Evanston an evaluation was accurate. or not the Defendant determine whether Engle again on 16 Nov I met with Mr. proceed and to determine wheth- fit to again he had time he stated that at which had a mental er or not the Defendant coming knowledge no deficiency at time of the again he for evaluation declared the offense. commission of procedure. participate in the would not NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY It was therefore decided that he would the Defendant shall be ORDERED that jail. be returned transported by County Sher- Natrona which were In the two brief interviews Department Hospital to the iffs State Engle hospital, he held with Mr. at this pursuant to for an evaluation Evanston information. provide some limited and 7-11- Wyoming 7-11-303 Stat[ut]e he in Ari- He stated that had been 304. some Hospital in Phoenix at zona State ORDERED that the IT IS FURTHER having past, in been also time Wyoming remain at the Defendant shall evaluation, a court ordered Hospital in-patient State basis also competent. found to be He had was (30) longer thirty days no period a than private psychiatric in hos- treated been study condition of mental as a result of an acciden- pital Phoenix the accused. Methamphetamine, a tal overdose IT FURTHER ORDERED that writ- IS drug regularly which he had used over pre-trial ten examination years. period of several filed of Court and shall be Clerk interviews, Mr. mani- In these two including matters set forth with those as signs no of mental illness fested obvious 7-11-303 and 7-11- Wyoming Statute no deficiency. There was association- 304. disorder, thought no al disturbance affect, hal- and no evidence for mood DEFENSE II. INSANITY major or delusions or other lucinations PROCEDURE oriented, He well psychopathology. order, impairment of attention there Responsive the district court concentration, intact, and memory was filed letter dated November 30, 1987, level was estimated to be intellectual was furnished and November Rundle, high average. signed M.D. in behalf of Frank L. hospital superin- approved by the state III. AS AN ISSUE OF INTENT

tendent, text: which stated full THE OFFENSE was admitted Hospital on Nov 87 accord- statutory sufficiency is the It your order for evaluation. signed ance with correspondence not even which was undersigned the author from which we are called He was interviewed deny nullify a on 13 Nov at which time he declared consider effectiveness pleaded aids, of non-responsibility knowingly defense abets assists another deficiency. mental doing, upon conviction, The state of so of a degree intent and punishable intoxi- by imprison- misdemeanor because, cation peculiarly significant were (1) ment for not year, more than one dependent upon the character intent fine of not more one than thousand dol- regard displacement rights of owner- ($1,000.00), lars or both. ship, the undenied offense was either a in Consequently, theory defense felony joyriding. auto theft or misdemeanor presented as now and since the obvious felony theft, provided The by auto as occur, taking appel unauthorized the 6-3-402(a), W.S. states: late permanent issue becomes in whether carries, person steals, A who deprive takes and tent to was refuted either intoxi away property leads or drives of another cation or lack of mental competency. deprive to intent the owner or singularly applied law- Facts potential to these possessor ful is guilty larceny. defenses were the characterization of the that, arresting supervisor officer to his punishment The years maximum is ten im- arrest, it looked like he had “fruit a $10,000 prisonment and a fine or both if the cake” as well as the corollary circumstance property joyrid- value is or more. $500 appellant had checked into a transient ing statute, 31-11-102, provides: facility Casper in belongings where his Any person specific who without au- driving were found and was down the road thority the owner or his authorized Douglas toward having his abandoned both agent willfully, wantonly, and accredited belongings arranged and his residence for maliciously of, possession takes day.1 the drives, propels away, or takes at- of, tempts possession drive, take pro- to IV. COMPETENCY HEARING vehicle, pel, away property take a the another, purpose Following of temporari- filing the of the letter from ly vehicle, making Hospital, use of the Wyoming procedurally, or who one-and-a-half-day 1. encompassing Comparable completely In this trial to this irrational ninety transcript pages prosecution events, about for including appellant’s course in action defense, pages only and ten uncertain leaving belongings facility, at transient inquiry why appellant factual was did what he arresting was the characterization officer undisputable did. The discernable and facts superior to his that: bar, appellant were left a saw an unattended your discussing Q. And in fact it in leaving belong- vehicle and took off while captain you pulling to referred over this ings where he had checked at the Souls is, you "fruitcake” I believe how it? termed (since Anchor Rescue Mission called Central Well, no, A. sir. Mission), facility. Rescue a transient Becker, way you Q. Officer is that Perhaps explainable as other reason was it or not? termed probation to version stated Oh, sir, called, yes, Captain I A. I told presentence investigation officer for after con- Morrison that this be a could “fruitcake.” viction, not, appellant since had for whatever you Q. And that was on based information reason, testify elected to trial: at garnered your had from REDDI and My day “I went to Brothers Place that observations? allready peach I drank a bottle of [sic] Yes, A. sir. bought couple (4)[J schnapps and of beers part process: And as of the arrest shooting I had been coke for awhile and did Okay, laying ground Q. he and was some more the bathroom there. The bar- complaining being about it dirt and are put tender I felt did not and I like me think he something my telling just pavement him beer and when I it is was one dirt. quarter way through Right. the last beer I A. spinning got up[,] started so I went to the apparently Q. So his observations were thought bathroom then left [and] [sic] cause going somewhat inaccurate at that time? something strange on. I could give just trying A. Either that or he was hardly see. I went to truck Nick[']s and me a hard time. keys got get had the there, so I able to be out guess ultimately you Q. I had decided he tree, got and into a wreck with a I left had a little bit too to drink? much accident, just got and I onto the closest Yes, I A. did. Doug- freeway got and drove until I busted in las." coop- hearing” Hospital the first time to convened on the State “competency report, just and he erate have stipulated 1988 to consider January today do so. I think the evidence didn’t of mental pleas “not has show Your Honor Mr. will reason mental and not triable illness system through the on a number of been present- choices deficiency.” occasions, of how to is aware were: ed system, the State would work Engle to sent down [A]sking Mr. respectfully the Court that submit to Hospital try an evaluation him doing, he is allow a contin- all ask- anticipate the alternative him. trial, date, of this at the late uance for a continuance us ing the Court date, just late further serve would him, get psychiatrist for us to look at attempting just do he is what option ask the as a we would third system mess with the until such time as I don’t think to withdraw because Court getting we do have a trial and effective, if not in there is fact we can be all our out of of hair. cooperation that the evidence will the Well, places THE COURT: the statute Engle Mr. and the Court between show request a time for limit myself. subsequent examination. responded to the alternative The State so, I Hon- MR. CRANK: believe Your standing requested by on the suffi- choices or. ciency of the letter and state is a MR. VREELAND: I believe there objection psychiatric a examina- further afterwards, day Judge, part five but tion: we re- our contention is that what have Honor, Your MR. CRANK: State Hospital first ceived from the any calling witnesses doesn’t intend really isn’t in place accordance with matter, we would stand on the this and way a Any statute. I don’t see how have report that we received from could, person really report this a consider Hospital Engle’s compe- as to Mr. State 7-11-303, in accordance with the Statute proceed- proceed at stated tency to Hospital which sets out what the should ings. really position It is our do us! we you opposed Are THE COURT: gotten an from the haven’t evaluation obtaining Defense their notion Hospital don’t how we call and see can psychiatrist to examine him? own letter from there November 24th an this am, evaluation, Honor, it doesn’t address the statu- I Your MR. CRANK: try tory criteria. I think in that does Engle couple of Mr. has been reasons. issues, I think ex- to address some the time of arrest incarcerated since on, everyone plained to what went but I think we will run- for this offense. than I think we call other that don’t can problems get if ning speedy into trial we evaluation, request- this an with what we know, Secondly, you another evaluation. or ordered the do. ed did back on Novem- we receive Honor, I MR. find CRANK: Your can’t 30th, Hospi- from State ber right now, time limit statute but this, tal, copy Court has a where—the relatively period know there is a short cooperate Mr. refused where request time second evaluation. Hospital the authorities the State with 7-ll-304(d). THE COURT: Once we performing an evaluation. cer- report, then there was received that It MR. does state within five CRANK: tainty pursuant statute and the receiving copy report. days after rules, certainly saying, the Defendant had the recognize Mr. Vreeland is what point but, know, Hospital re- time to did the opportunity at they En- a second evaluation. We haven’t -do quest best could because And, believe, gone If he gle’s uncooperativeness. the time has had that. done them, cooperated with there and type relief. Mr. down run report that com- we have a every opportunity when then would had went They complete 7-11-303. us a files at plies hospi- . wrote three different they much tals. with as information had, Engle’s complete re- based on Mr. Q. general were these treatments them, cooperate they psychological fusal physical matters or for do, they what had to sent and then disabilities? jail County him back to in Natrona here psychological. A. Most of them to await trial. hearing conclusion, At following the hospital superintendent investigator cross-examination of the The state who about cooperation the lack of signed inconsistency had the letter behalf of the exam appellant, mental character of the dis signed approval iner and then but had evaluation, trict court denied second personal appellant in any no contact with denied the withdrawal coun during period supposed fashion ex sel, and denied a continuance for the trial amination was called as the first witness then scheduled to four days convene later. hearing. The actual institution au principal basis for the district court’s gone hospi thor of the letter from the five-day decision was that the re-examina apparently tal and was not available to period passed tion had required without testify. Consequently, testifying wit request by appellant’s counsel for the sec provide personal knowledge ness could decision, By ond evaluation. the dis of the mental condition of trict court determined both issues of triabil letter, except for the did submit no other ity prospective defense on the merits documentary evidence be considered. separate questions which are “discrete” be (Wyo. v. 723 P.2d 564 Zespy, State Cf. governed each is cause different medical 1986). legal Missouri, Drope standards. v. private investigator A was then called 420 U.S. 95 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d the defense who testified about his con- (1975); Taylor, United States v. 437 F.2d attempted appel- tacts and interviews with (4th Cir.1971). Thus, assistance for essence, lant. he stated: appellant. defense was denied to United A. I proba- have talked to Mr. Crews, (10th States v. 781 F.2d 826 Cir. bly prior six seven times two [the] 1986). months, or three and he has never been This time limitation was derived from story consistent or ever told me the same 7-ll-304(d), provides: W.S. twists, twice. Also have different differ- plea In all cases where a of “not facts, them, ent some of don’t know deficiency” reason mental illness or it, you put every approach how time I made, judge the shall order the defen- why, just way him as far that is [as] provided dant examined as W.S. 7-11- happened, why he doesn’t understand 303(b). provided If an examination story. don’t believe 7-ll-303(b) made, report W.S. Q. you He never refused to talk to may be received in evidence and new anything like that? required unless, examination shall No, A. never has. court, the discretion of the another exam- Q. you Did ever obtain medical necessary. (5) ination is days Within five reports Engle? on Mr. receiving copy report, both Yes, state, A. I had talked Mr. the accused and the written request, about a doctor he had seen before he granting an order obtain Wyoming, gave ever came to and he me them an examination of the accused designated the names two or three different doc- examiner of their choos- own Phoenix, tors that he had ing. cop- seen at -Ari- The clerk of court shall deliver zona, hospitals. at three different reports then ies of the to the district hospitals contacted the after I had ob- attorney and to the accused his coun- or. form, tained a medical release sent to All required by sel. this subsec- also, they them sent me back his requirements tion shall conform to the (1) suffering 7-ll-303(c). He at the time of reports'are not These illness or conduct from mental public. criminal open to the

public records deficiency; and really not establish The record does (2) result, As a he lacked substantial public was received when wrong- capacity appreciate either to probably was furnished defender and never of his conduct or conform fulness as- appellant. There seems to be an requirements to the of the law. conduct public that the sumption from record deficiency” means a The term “mental letter, aware of defender became retardation, attributable to mental defect presented is that the letter context now damage disability. learning brain adequate eval- was not considered to be phrase or deficien- “mental illness letter failed to the text of the uation since man- abnormality does not include an cy” It was on the comply the statute. only by or oth- repeated criminal ifested statutory non-compliance basis of conduct. erwise antisocial analysis public defender’s office Defen- prove The State must that the alternative, perhaps belatedly, had responsible mentally dant was requested a re-examination to consti- either beyond crime a reasonable doubt. at the state first real evaluation tute the Thus, you if do not believe desig- examiner be that another proven beyond has a reasonable nated. mentally that the Defendant was doubt responsible, then should find him not PROBLEM WITH JURY V. of mental reaso[n]

INSTRUCTIONS deficiency. giv- The lesser included instruction was problems then trial were not defense en, principal justification but —mental Requested jury end. instructions which felony been condition for the offense—had by the court included: were denied .district Actually, nothing there is in this denied. mentally finding A that Defendant was record, scope if its expand even we responsible equivalent for his acts is not investigator’s analysis, comments and that finding specif- with the to a that he acted appellant particu- even intimates that had a necessary charged. crime ic for the intent Stovall, deprive lar intent to as the owner the evidence in the Even if find from vehicle, permanent of possession of the doubt beyond case reasonable As from this insuffi- his vehicle. observed mentally responsible his was for accused record, all is cient one derives a conclusion offense, alleged it acts time of the at the rationality in appellant defined lacked duty consider all the evi- your is still there- taking the vehicle and what he did may aid in in the case which deter- dence during driving. his The issue after aimless he acted with the neces- mining whether not sufficiency the evidence is sary specific intent. not, presented conse- appeal on and need deficiency be Mental or can quently, pursued. be further by brought about the continuous use intoxicating liquor drugs. A HAPPENED TO defen- VI. WHAT using de- INSANITY DEFENSE dant not barred from is responsibility lack fense of me[n]tal prime subject concern deficiency mental illness beca[us]e appeal happened, only is what brought was about continued use of reason of his defense not triable any such substance. illness, mental but also to the substantive person certain circumstances a plea Under of not mental responsible legally pleading for criminal deficiency presen- illness or circumstances, Among stipulation or- conduct. those and district court tation legally responsible only explained Defendant is not der. It can that defense aspects of these criminal conduct if: counsel waived both 1309 son, 375, 378, delay requesting 836, 838, virtue of his a second 383 86 U.S. S.Ct. * * examination, 815, (1966); provide 15 L.Ed.2d 818 might which re- *. some alistic mental condition information. Lack- State, 551, Manning v. 766 S.W.2d 553-54 examination, ing that there no avail- was (Tex.App.1989). litigate able viable evidence to the mental What occurred to in this case sufficiency appellant. condition of Similar- question calls into direct the text of the ly, this case was same as another case statute, 7-11-303, examination which where, result, “[ajs expert there was no provides: testimony sanity either side on Ake’s (a) appears If any stage of a ” at the time Ake v. Okla- offense. proceeding, by criminal motion or homa, 68, 72, 1087, 470 U.S. 105 S.Ct. 84 motion, the court’s own there is (1985). that, Notwithstanding L.Ed.2d 53 reasonable cause to believe ac- all, insanity defense after unlike a “[a]n cused has a mental claim, malpractice require medical does not making proceed, him unfit to all further expert testimony prerequisite pre- as a suspended. shall be State, jury.” sentation to a Motes v. 256 (b) The court shall order an examina- 831, 348, (1987). Ga. 353 S.E.2d 349 In this designated tion of the accused ex- case, simply disappeared by the defense aminer. may include, The order but hearing district court’s decision in initial to, not limited an examination of the ac- that the letter sufficient to determine cused at the state competency and that other examinations basis, inpatient outpatient at a local by delayed request. were waived also See mental inpatient health center on an Zespy, 723 P.2d 564. outpatient basis, place or at his of deten- selecting site, tion. In the examination procedure This cannot meet the standard proximity the court consider required by Robinson, Pate v. 383 U.S. court, availability examiner, of an 375, 836, (1966), 86 S.Ct. 815 L.Ed.2d necessity precautions. security adequate hearing since no competency provides If the order for commitment of provided pretrial during either trial designated facility, the accused to a responsive which was to the mental defi longer commitment shall continue no ciency plea. authority Similar is found in (30) thirty day period than a States, Dusky v. United U.S. study of the mental condition of the ac- (1960), S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 824 also cused. result, requires conviction reversal. (c) pretrial Written ex- appel district court denied consideration to amination filed shall be clerk of lant his mental condition when the state court. The shall include: comply statutory failed to (i) findings; Detailed requirements for a mental examination re Thereafter, port. (ii) interpretation opinion An as to whether the ac- the letter did not fulfill requirements cused has a mental illness or deficien- proper report, appellant’s counsel, for a cy, probable duration; and its request, right untimely any lost his to have (iii) opinion An as to whether the compliance real mental evaluation to secure accused, as a result of illness mental 7-11-304(d). with W.S. deficiency, capacity compre- lacks to position, hend his to understand the It is well settled that the conviction of object nature of the legally incompe- an accused while him, against to conduct his defense in process. tent to stand trial violates due manner, cooperate a rational and to Moore, 105, 108, Massey v. 348 U.S. any counsel the end that 145, 147, (1954); 99 L.Ed. S.Ct. * * may interposed; available defense be provide procedures *. A state must adequate protect (iv) that are opinion a defen- An as to whether at the process right alleged dant’s due not to be tried time of the criminal conduct incompetent. accused, while he is Pate v. Robin- a result ill- of mental charged ground that at deficiency, lacked substantial the crime on ness or wrongful- of the act he appreciate the time was afflicted capacity deficiency excluding conform a mental illness or his conduct or to ness of law; finding responsibility. Nor shall the be requirements to the of conduct on that issue or introduced evidence (v) A as whether recommendation brought to the notice of the otherwise desig- should be held in a the accused jury. by the accused No statement made facility pending for treatment nated any of examination or treat course by the court of the issue determination pursuant ment to this section and no proceed; fitness to of mental by any person in information received (vi) as to wheth- A recommendation examination or the course of the treat- accused, if found the court to er the any admitted in evidence in ment shall be mentally proceed, fit to should be proceeding criminal then or thereafter designated facility pend- detained in a pending any on issue other than that of ing proceedings. further the mental condition of the accused. (d) cop- clerk of court shall deliver The Notwithstanding any provision (j) of report attorney the district ies of the section, may counsel for the accused accused or his counsel. The legal objections any make and all open record or report public is not a susceptible are of a fair determination receiving copy public. After of prior personal partic- to trial without the report, both the accused and the state ipation of the accused. good may, upon request and for written them an examination party. tion and ferred hold a motion. If the subsection or his counsel contests the of this section relative to fitness to on the ceed, report furnished to the court and the ing. For each examination cause court designated examiner of their own choos- (f) proceed ‡ If neither the the court shown, conforming to in hearing basis finding of record on this issue ^[*] (c) of this section shall be is contested the court shall subsection hold a of the obtain an order opinion may # state, hearing on its of the make a determina- issue. [paragraph] relative to fitness ^[*] requirements of nor the accused accused filed or the opinion ordered, $ opposing granting (c)(iii) own pro- ^[*] re- ;plea pleaded submitted to the petency. Denied consideration testimony to mental state. court. Found mental en tuting decision port lesser been made expert tor Without This means that vehicle; authenticating will charge, the district court detailed from his defense of not only contain six deficiency, examination, appellant by joint stipulation submit about unauthorized guilty findings by evaluation jury, although order specific the verdict form guilty; guilty required of guilty by reason permitted jury his mental com- of felony, appel- use felony. items consti- the district was never written re- qualified mental had no it had a mo- giv- The reports may be received in evidence at lant then to not less than six sentenced hearing party issue. years eight years nor more than with credit contesting any opinion to fitness relative days county jail for 200 in served right proceed has the to summon and awaiting Appellant while trial. has now persons cross-examine the who rendered been continuous confinement since of- opinion and to offer evidence 11, September nearly date of 1987 fense the issue. twenty months.

[*] $ ^[*] SfC # ^[5] n This case is even more egregious than (h) Ake, 68, 105 1087, finding by A the court that 470 U.S. S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d proceed 58, mentally accused is fit to shall since here the substantive defense of jury prejudice the accused a defense to the accused was not submitted to the

13H Blackstone, The three cit- make his defence?’ 4 consideration. cases W. 423, State, State, 278 Ark. Commentaries* 24.” ed Ball v. (1983); State, 693 Mikel v. 550 646 S.W.2d Pedersen, 490, v. 309 N.W.2d 501 (Mo.App.1977); 863 and State v. S.W.2d (Iowa 1981) (quoting Drope, 420 U.S. at

Bacon, (Mo.App.1973),can 501 S.W.2d 499 171, 903). 95 S.Ct. at distinguished by easily be differences Clearly, hospital the state letter did not controlling facts and state statutes. We required by contain the information State, find the case of Miller v. 498 S.W.2d 7-11-303(c). State, 558, Hayes 599 v. P.2d more (Mo.App.1973) 79 to be relevant and text, (Wyo.1979). 562 n. 3 Within persuasive. Drope, more See also 420 U.S. gave explanation why no as did not 162, 896, 43 95 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 103. examination, understand his included court, appellate The Illinois when consid- required by comment as W.S. 7-11- ering including expert similar facts and 303(c)(iv)as to his condition at the time of denial, discerned: witness conduct, alleged criminal referenced no failing appoint psychiatrist regard cooperation to conclusion in with counsel, suggest determine defendant’s mental condition and failed to what other occurred, might provide at the time the offense the trial examination or observation court denied defendant his constitutional some realistic evidence. No indication is guaranteed right process. given ly to due that other medical records were con (Ake, 83, 105 1096, prior history 84 opin- 470 U.S. at S.Ct. at sidered reviewed for 66.) clearly support. Berger, This ion L.Ed.2d at See Drob and of the trial court’s A Malingering: abuse discretion. Determination Com- prehensive Approach, Clinical-Forensic 335, People Kegley, Ill.App.3d v. 175 125 (1987). Psychiatry 15 J. and the Law 519 42, 1118, (1988). Ill.Dec. 529 N.E.2d being court federal considered that VII. SUFFICIENCY OF THE REPORT manipulative mean and does not necessar- legal ily equate sanity, v. United States spotlighted specificity The issue Samuels, (1986), reh’g 801 F.2d 1052 de- appeal is whether the state (8th Cir.1987). 808 F.2d 1298 We do nied substantially complied letter with the statu- confirming not have evidence of either tory requirements. Also focused was what characteristic here. It is established that happens if the state letter does or cooperate may “in some cases a ‘failure to comply does not when was denied ” symptom mental disorder.’ itself be a any additional examination so he had no (quoting 437 F.2d at 378 Judicial Taylor, evidence for his mental condi- substantive of the District of Columbia Cir- Conference present requirement tion defense. The cuit, Report of the Committee Problems statutorily provided mental examination Mental Examinations of Connected with required in constitutionally the Accused in Criminal Cases Before Trial long ago. was enunciated (1966)). long, accepted per- “It has that a been son whose mental condition is such that OPINION VIII. RIGHT TO SECOND capacity to he lacks the understand prob- object This court is faced with the second nature and him, counsel, public office of the against to consult with lem of waiver right preparing his defense of a claimed to secure to assist defender Thus, because, opinion analysis, in their subjected to a trial. Black- second unreasonable, re- completely ‘mad’ not the first stone wrote that one who became totally comply the statu- port of an offense failed the commission hospital. arraigned tory responsibility of the state should not be it ‘because say an Evitts v. plead to it Suffice it to that within he is not able to 830, 105 S.Ct. ought.’ Lucey, that he Sim- U.S. advice caution 821, reh’g 470 U.S. ilarly, pleading, if he ‘mad’ after L.Ed.2d denied became (1985) tried, 1783, con- 84 L.Ed.2d 841 ‘for how can he 105 S.Ct. should not be GOLDEN, Justice, specially such a cannot funda- cept, counsel waive concurring. right States Con- under the United mental Const, 6, 1, Wyo. art. due stitution § the I concur in of the conviction reversal 10, law; 1, right and art. process of. § ground hospi- simple the that the state to defend.2 accused subsequent and tal’s mental examination comply did not statu-

letter only tory requirements. Appellant raised IX. CONCLUSION appeal. decide the that issue on We should single restrain plea by on that issue and our- Factually, guilty not rea- case expanding unnecessarily from extinguished selves of mental son restraint, we opinion. Without such serve (1) hospital did not con- state because points strategies or trial up dicta of law (2) evaluation, reasonable and duct a “merely a majority other matters not attacked response vigorously by particular court time con- days counsel five appellant’s within me, importance. To sider them of future appel- complex receipt. Disregarding other advisory this amounts the issuance presented, conjecturally issues we late opinions, procedure ordinarily that we (1) simply conclude that would State, 870, reject.” Stuebgen 548 P.2d v. comply not as a medi- the state J., (McClintock (Wyo.1976) specially 886-87 deficiency report pursuant to cal illness or concurring). Rosachi, See also v. and, consequently, did 7-11-303 not W.S. 318, (Wyo.1976). 549 P.2d in response to the provide a basis order by examination which further examination CARDINE, Justice, dissenting. Chief denied; (2) pleas guilty and of not could be join opinion I cannot court present by mental illness defi- opinion is therefore The too and dissent. ciency reason of mental broad, far, goes ques and decides much too or waived illness were eviscerated authority supporting tions without state letter. presented appeal. in this For ex are not appropri- for an We reverse remand Opinion,” ample, “Right under to Second designated ate evaluation one or more public by the the court discusses waiver prepare who will a written re- examiners right” office “claimed to a defender’s of a compliance mandatory cri- port with the Lucey, 469 opinion. v. U.S. second Evitts 7-ll-303(c) provide a teria of W.S. basis (1985), 83 L.Ed.2d 821 S.Ct. incompetency which a hear- realistic proposition cited for the can ing jury can conducted and for consider- right.” “such As not waive a fundamental ation of defenses.3 suming right referred to is designated

right opinion to a second 7-11-304(d), defined examiner GOLDEN, J., specially concurs. court has never decided this to be a “funda J., CARDINE, C.J., THOMAS, right in mental” the constitutional sense. cited, Evitts, only case is an dissents. ineffective grand larceny. argument prosecution stated: All of the so-called defenses 2. The in final any you are of the facts or inconsi[s]tent to talk to Ladies and Gentlemen I want heard, you of the evidence have that we for a moment about inconsistent defenses. you plead Defense told defendant had day yesterday. all listened to guilty and not reason mental not illness. Mental illness has gone by way- journal example interesting law 3. See up and side. Now Mr. Vreeland stands tells subject. article on the condition intent —mental deprive Comment, that he didn’t intend to Sto- Criminal Law—Mental Illness—In car, work, but doesn't he was vall of his if that sanity Does Not Bar Act Defense Reform Defen necessary intent. too drunk to form the Offering Psychiatric Evidence dant From Men defenses, Ladies are There inconsistent Abnormality Mens Rea. tal on Issue United Gentlemen, dodges, they all all smok- are Pohlot, (3d Cir.1987), v. States 827 F.2d 889 up by put to hide Mr. Vreeland escreens (1988). Rutgers L.J. 271 charged complicity in the crime defendant’s “(iv) Cooperate with his counsel to the separate Three case. of counsel assistance any end that available defense be appar- are of constitutional law questions interposed.” nothing more than being decided with ently 7-ll-305(a), W.S.1977, pro- then scant discussion. Section of a form submission verdict vides opinion appel- Additionally, the describes jury may jury “by to a which the find the stealing in the truck as a lant’s behavior defendant not reason mental irrational course events.” “completely excluding responsibili- deficiency illness or heavily the fact that opinion stresses procedures ty.” Wyoming statutory with belongings his appellant abandoned responsibility or respect issues mission, this apparently because the rescue inability stand trial because of mental intent to return. be evidence of could designed deficiency are to com- remand, going is this case back Since port historically per- with what has been the court should charac- question whether approach. humanitarian ceived as valid “completely as irration- terize the behavior however, way, Analyzed in this these I, one, think it would be rational al.” procedures are a means to an end and obtained the benefit be conclude pursuing In simply an end in itself. greater might be from a 1979 Suburban end, necessary perhaps means to an it is of the transient’s than the intrinsic value instruct the staff at the Anchor Res- possessions left at Souls Hospital respect to how the Mission. cue majority opinion, should be written. which, however, in quotes this conclusion, my major concern with the instance, negative. essentially is Consider- just raises opinion is that court’s ing perhaps was limit- that the examination dispositive of the issue. That one issue cooperate in ed because refused opinion accept this case. cannot it, still, physician stat- connection with raised, espe- issues not discusses six other report: ed in his painted cially when the discussion interviews, Engle man- “In these two such broad strokes. signs of mental ifested no obvious There no association- deficiency. or Justice, THOMAS, dissenting. disorder, no disturbance thought al join majority opinion affect, I cannot no evidence for hal- mood or case, disposition major I dissent from the or delusions or other lucinations oriented, He was well incompetents psychopathology. are fa- made. Mental there or impairment of attention there was no long recognized We have vored the law. intact, concentration, memory impact of mental illness was estimated to be intellectual level respect responsibility to criminal high average.” capacity of an accused to assist examiner, addressing involved a trial to it is findings by the issues Given these they are criminal conduct. me to conclude that culpability for difficult for determine findings neg- are W.S.1977, Because the 7-11-302, capsulizes the not detailed. Section ative, perceive what else am unable position: social opinion as might do to furnish an examiner tried, “(a) sentenced person No shall be Engle has a mental illness to whether for the commission of an punished whether, any as a result of deficiency or while, ill- a result of mental offense deficiency, he lacked ca- mental illness capacity, deficiency, he lacks the ness or or to comprehend position his pacity to to: object of the the nature and understand “(i) Comprehend position; against him or to conduct “(ii) object the nature and Understand cooper- or to in a rational manner defense him; proceedings against to the end that ate with his counsel It "(in) might interposed. in a rational Conduct his defense available defense findings do consti- manner; is clear to me that the develop did not them further at opinion that not suffer want tute an lack deficiency or at competency from mental either the capacity appreciate fact, In does seem to he the substantial the trial. that wrongfulness his conduct at the time of logical way to understand this record. most the vehicle. Under the circum- the theft of brings lan- This us back the threshold stances, recommendations as to where 7-ll-303(a), W.S.1977, guage in which § trial, pending or a determi- should be held as follows: states proceed, seem un- nation of his fitness appears any stage “If at of a criminal it necessary. proceeding, motion or the examiner not have dotted While motion, that there is court’s own reason- t’s, given his overall his i’s or crossed his that the accused able cause to believe respect Engle, I have to conclusion making deficiency has a mental illness or really necessary to re- ask whether it is proceed, proceed- him unfit to all further the outline of quire that follows ings suspended.” (emphasis shall be possible it court the statute. Is added). if one claims to be simply saying recognize practice I that the common is to deficiency, mental illness or afflicted with a proce- pursue statutory examination not satisfies the report saying no he is In dure whenever the issue is raised. this requirements of the statute? instance, however, Engle once had been to pursue addition- The court has chosen the state and that had been dictum, which al issues as a matter received, the reasonable cause to believe apparently uttered in its role as an advo- Engle was afflicted with mental illness its role as an arbiter. cate rather than longer present issues, addressing the ma- those additional absence of additional information. The tri- provision jority opinion overlooks the judge through by Engle, al saw this effort W.S.1977, 7-ll-305(b), provides, in which § might specious. well described as be pertinent part: My interpretation En- of the record is that “ * * * Every presumed defendant is counsel, gle set out to cozen his defense mentally responsible. The defendant court, investigator, prosecutor, the trial going forward shall have the burden of at the examiner proving by greater weight of Hospital. technique That did not work for that, ill- evidence as a result of mental there, him court. but worked capacity deficiency, ness or he lacked suspicion my part must confess a wrongfulness appreciate either to way will chuckle all the back to the his conduct or to conform his conduct to hospital, state he chooses not wherever requirements of the law.” go, incompetency for his next examina- majority alludes to testimo- note that the developments tion. I shall await further ny by Engle’s investigator that he had ob- with interest. reports tained medical from three different would, however, Engle’s affirm convic- hospitals relating psychological matters. tion. Curiously, no effort was made to introduce reports any stage pro- of these those

ceedings. they If favorable to were question competency,

on the then he was inadequate representation. victim However, possibility is that these the other negative, also were which would very why make it understandable

Case Details

Case Name: Engle v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: May 31, 1989

Citation: 774 P.2d 1303

Docket Number: 88-123

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.