Estelle v. Smith

Decision Date18 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 79-1127,79-1127
Citation451 U.S. 454,101 S.Ct. 1866,68 L.Ed.2d 359
PartiesW. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Petitioner, v. Ernest Benjamin SMITH
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

After respondent was indicted in Texas for murder, the State announced its intention to seek the death penalty. At an ensuing psychiatric examination, ordered by the trial court to determine respondent's competency to stand trial and conducted in the jail where he was being held, the examining doctor determined that respondent was competent. Thereafter, respondent was tried by a jury and convicted. A separate sentencing proceeding was then held before the same jury as required by Texas law. At such a proceeding the jury must resolve three critical issues to determine whether or not the death sentence will be imposed. One of these issues involves the future dangerousness of the defendant, i. e., whether there is a probability that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. At the sentencing hearing, the doctor who had conducted the pretrial psychiatric examination was allowed to testify for the State over defense counsels' objection that his name did not appear on the list of witnesses the State planned to use at either the guilt or penalty stages of the proceedings. His testimony was based on the pretrial examination and stated in substance that respondent would be a danger to society. The jury then resolved the issue of future dangerousness, as well as the other two issues, against respondent, and thus under Texas law the death penalty was mandatory. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and death sentence. After unsuccessfully seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts, respondent petitioned for such relief in Federal District Court. That court vacated the death sentence because it found constitutional error in admitting the doctor's testimony at the penalty phase. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held :

1. The admission of the doctor's testimony at the penalty phase violated respondent's Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination, because he was not advised before the pretrial psychiatric examination that he had a right to remain silent and that any statement he made could be used against him at a capital sentencing proceeding. Pp. 461-469.

(a) There is no basis for distinguishing between the guilt and penalty phases of respondent's trial so far as the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege is concerned. The State's attempt to establish respondent's future dangerousness by relying on the unwarned statements he made to the examining doctor infringed the Fifth Amendment just as much as would have any effort to compel respondent to testify against his will at the sentencing hearing. Pp. 462-463.

(b) The Fifth Amendment privilege is directly involved here because the State used as evidence against respondent the substance of his disclosures during the pretrial psychiatric examination. The fact that respondent's statements were made in the context of such an examination does not automatically remove them from the reach of that Amendment. Pp. 463-466.

(c) The considerations calling for the accused to be warned prior to custodial interrogation apply with no less force to the pretrial psychiatric examination at issue here. An accused who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing proceeding. When faced while in custody with a court-ordered psychiatric inquiry, respondent's statements to the doctor were not "given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences" and, as such, could be used as the State did at the penalty phase only if respondent had been apprised of his rights and had knowingly decided to waive them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Since these safeguards of the Fifth Amendment privilege were not afforded respondent, his death sentence cannot stand. Pp. 466-469.

2. Respondent's Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel also was violated by the State's introduction of the doctor's testimony at the penalty phase. Such right already had attached when the doctor examined respondent in jail, and that interview proved to be a "critical stage" of the aggregate proceedings against respondent. Defense counsel were not notified in advance that the psychiatric examination would encompass the issue of their client's future dangerousness, and respondent was denied the assistance of his counsel in making the significant decision of whether to submit to the examination and to what end the psychiatrist's findings could be employed. Pp. 469-471.

5 Cir., 602 F.2d 694, affirmed.

Anita Ashton, Austin, Tex., for petitioner.

Joel Berger, New York City, for respondent.

Chief Justice BURGER, delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to consider whether the prosecution's use of psychiatric testimony at the sentencing phase of respondent's capital murder trial to establish his future dangerousness violated his constitutional rights. 445 U.S. 926, 100 S.Ct. 1311, 63 L.Ed.2d 758 (1980).

I
A.

On December 28, 1973, respondent Ernest Benjamin Smith was indicted for murder arising from his participation in the armed robbery of a grocery store during which a clerk was fatally shot, not by Smith, but by his accomplice. In accordance with Art. 1257(b)(2) of the Tex.Penal Code Ann. (Vernon 1974) concerning the punishment for murder with malice aforethought, the State of Texas announced its intention to seek the death penalty. Thereafter, a judge of the 195th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, informally ordered the State's attorney to arrange a psychiatric examination of Smith by Dr. James P. Grigson to determine Smith's competency to stand trial.1 See n. 5, infra.

Dr. Grigson, who interviewed Smith in jail for approximately 90 minutes, concluded that he was competent to stand trial. In a letter to the trial judge, Dr. Grigson reported his findings: "[I]t is my opinion that Ernest Benjamin Smith, Jr., is aware of the difference between right and wrong and is able to aid an attorney in his defense." App. A-6. This letter was filed with the court's papers in the case. Smith was then tried by a jury and convicted of murder.

In Texas, capital cases require bifurcated proceedings—a guilt phase and a penalty phase.2 If the defendant is found guilty, a separate proceeding before the same jury is held to fix the punishment. At the penalty phase, if the jury affirmatively answers three questions on which the State has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge must impose the death sentence. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Arts. 37.071(c) and (e) (Vernon Supp. 1980). One of the three critical issues to be resolved by the jury is "whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society." Art. 37.071(b)(2).3 In other words, the jury must assess the defendant's future dangerousness.

At the commencement of Smith's sentencing hearing, the State rested "[s]ubject to the right to reopen." App. A-11. Defense counsel called three lay witnesses: Smith's stepmother, his aunt, and the man who owned the gun Smith carried during the robbery. Smith's relatives testified as to his good reputation and character.4 The owner of the pistol testified as to Smith's knowledge that it would not fire because of a mechanical defect. The State then called Dr. Grigson as a witness.

Defense counsel were aware from the trial court's file of the case that Dr. Grigson had submitted a psychiatric report in the form of a letter advising the court that Smith was competent to stand trial.5 This report termed Smith "a severe sociopath," but it contained no more specific reference to his future dangerousness. Id., at A-6. Before trial, defense counsel had obtained an order requiring the State to disclose the witnesses it planned to use both at the guilt stage, and, if known, at the penalty stage. Subsequently, the trial court had granted a defense motion to bar the testimony during the State's case in chief of any witness whose name did not appear on that list. Dr. Grigson's name was not on the witness list, and defense counsel objected when he was called to the stand at the penalty phase.

In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Dr. Grigson stated: (a) that he had not obtained permission from Smith's attorneys to examine him; (b) that he had discussed his conclusions and diagnosis with the State's attorney; and (c) that the prosecutor had requested him to testify and had told him, approximately five days before the sentencing hearing began, that his testimony probably would be needed within the week. Id., at A-14—A-16. The trial judge denied a defense motion to exclude Dr. Grigson's testimony on the ground that his name was not on the State's list of witnesses. Although no continuance was requested, the court then recessed for one hour following an acknowledgment by defense counsel that an hour was "all right." Id., at A-17.

After detailing his professional qualifications by way of foundation, Dr. Grigson testified before the jury on direct examination: (a) that Smith "is a very severe sociopath"; (b) that "he will continue his previous behavior"; (c) that his sociopathic condition will "only get worse"; (d) that he has no "regard for another human being's property or for their life, regardless of who it may be"; (e) that "[t]here is no treatment, no medicine . . . that in any way at all modifies or changes this behavior"; (f) that he "is going to go ahead and commit other similar or same criminal acts if given the opportunity to do so"; and (g) that he "has no remorse or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1596 cases
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1981
    ...state has compelled to provide such evidence, the government may not use that evidence or its fruits. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 464, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 1872-73, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981); Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York, 378 U.S. 52, 57 n.6, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 1598 n. 6, 12 L.Ed.2d 6......
  • State v. Atkins
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1998
    ...violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, relying on the United States Supreme Court's holding in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981). We disagree and hold that the trial court's admission of the report did not violate defendant's constitutional rights......
  • People v. Keo
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 2019
    ...thus refers to questioning initiated by the police or its functional equivalent ...."]; see Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454, 467, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 ( Estelle ) [psychiatrist performing court-ordered pretrial psychiatric examination of defendant in custody was required to p......
  • People v. Ghent
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1987
    ...a Chapman test (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; see Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454, 468-469, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 1875-1876, 68 L.Ed.2d 359) is used. This testimony related primarily to defendant's ability to deliberate and premeditate prior......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
60 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Forms. Volume II - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...State , 595 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), cert. den ., 449 U.S. 986, 101 S. Ct. 408, 66 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1980), §14:04 Estelle v. Smith , 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), §§4:01, 4:42, 5:90; Form 4-16.1, 4-17, 5-21 Estrada v. State , 594 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.Cr.App. [ Panel Op......
  • Self-Incrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • August 17, 2016
    ...but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites. §5:24 T C Chapman citing Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 The privilege also protects a grand jury witness from being compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. State v. R......
  • Right to counsel and effective assistance of counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 5, 2022
    ...will encompass the issue of future dangerousness, in the absence of an affirmative waiver of the right to counsel. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981); Cook v. State, 741 S.W.2d 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The right that counsel be notified does not encomp......
  • Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2019 Contents
    • August 16, 2019
    ...will encompass the issue of future dangerousness, in the absence of an affirmative waiver of the right to counsel. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981); Cook v. State, 741 S.W.2d 928 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The right that counsel be notified does not encomp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT