Massey v. District Court In and For Tenth Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25798,25798 |
| Citation | 506 P.2d 128,180 Colo. 359 |
| Parties | Robert G. MASSEY, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, State of Colorado, and the Honorable Matt J. Kikel, one of the District Judges in and for the Tenth Judicial District, State of Colorado, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth Dresner, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner.
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Cecil L. Turner, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for respondents.
In an original proceeding, Robert G. Massey, an indigent defendant, seeks to prohibit the district court from proceeding further without first appointing a psychiatrist of his own choosing to examine him and determine his competency to proceed. Massey has been examined by two court-appointed psychiatrists who have expressed the opinion that he is competent to proceed. The trial court ruled that Massey was not entitled to a further psychiatric examination by the psychiatrist which he selected unless good cause was shown. We issued a rule to show cause and now discharge the rule.
The factual background in this case indicates that the defendant was charged with four separate felonies. In each of the four cases, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the alleged commission of the offense. Psychiatrists were appointed in all four cases to examine the defendant. Although the test for determining competency to proceed is different from that which measures responsibility for criminal conduct, the reports indicate the depth of the doctors' psychiatric evaluation of the defendant's mental condition. At the time the court made the finding, the defendant had been examined by at least four psychiatrists, either in connection with this case or in connection with the other charges that were then pending against him.
This proceeding was initiated after the defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. He was convicted on July 12, 1972, and thereafter, on September 11, he asserted that he was incompetent to proceed. C.R.S.1963, 39--8--110 (Laws 1972, p. 229). In accordance with the statute, the court suspended the proceeding; and after the defendant was examined by psychiatrists and two reports were delivered to the court, the court made a preliminary finding that the defendant was competent to proceed in accordance with the requirements of C.R.S.1963, 39--8--111 (Laws 1972, p. 229).
On November 8, 1972, Massey filed an additional motion asking for a competency hearing before a different judge and for the appointment of a psychiatrist of his own choosing. The motion which he filed claimed that the provisions of C.R.S.1963, 39--8--108 (Laws 1972, p. 229), gave him the absolute right to have a psychiatrist of his own choosing appointed. He made no effort to show that the examinations which had been conducted prior to the time that his motion was filed were either inadequate or unfair. The court held that it had no duty to appoint additional psychiatrists in the absence of a showing of good cause. In justifying the denial of the defendant's motion, the court noted that the psychiatrists had filed reports which reflect the opinion that the defendant was competent to proceed and then took judicial notice of the other psychiatric examinations which had been made in the other criminal cases which were pending against the defendant. The court, however, did grant the defendant's motion to have his competency determined by a different judge.
In this original proceeding, Massey asserts that he has an absolute right to the appointment of a psychiatrist of his own choice. He not only looks to our new Colorado Code of Criminal Procedure for support, but also asserts that a failure to appoint the psychiatrist selected by him would constitute a denial of his constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection of the laws. The new Colorado Code of Criminal Procedure (Laws 1972, p. 190) outlines the manner in which a competency hearing should be conducted and the rights that are afforded to a defendant in the following sections which are pertinent to this case:
'(2) A copy of any report of examination of the defendant made at the instance of the defense, containing information concerning which the defense intends to introduce evidence or testimony, shall be furnished to the prosecution a reasonable time in advance of trial.'
The provisions of C.R.S.1963, 39--8--108 (Laws 1972, p. 229), and C.R.S.1963, 39--8--119 (Laws 1972, p. 232), are the basis of Massey's argument. The defendant grounds his argument on the wording of Sections 108 and 119. He claims that the former section entitles him to choose a psychiatrist and that the latter section requires the state to pay the bill. The trial court, in denying the defendant's motion, held that these sections must be read together with Section 106. Under the provisions of C.R.S.1963, 39--8--106 (Laws 1972, p. 226), once a defendant has been examined by specialists in the field of nervous and mental diseases, the court may require good cause to be shown before ordering further psychiatric examination. The trial court properly construed the applicable sections of the statute.
It is a basic rule that a statute should be construed as a whole so as to give 'consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all its parts.' Tobin v. Weed, 158 Colo. 430, 407 P.2d 350 (1965); Breternitz v. Arvada, 174 Colo. 56, 482 P.2d 955 (1971).
If we were to give Sections 108 and 119 the meaning which the defendant has asserted, we would be giving no effect to Section 106. Moreover, we cannot accept the defendant's reading of Section 108. In our judgment, Section 108 is concerned with insuring that defendant will be available for examination by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palmer
...that the expert selected by an indigent defendant will in all cases be provided without cost to him." Massey v. Dist. Court, 180 Colo. 359, 363, 506 P.2d 128, 130 (1973) (construing predecessor statutes to sections 16-8-108 and 16-8-119). We have also held that, "Under the provisions of Sec......
-
People v. Young
...harmonious, and sensible effect to all its parts. E.g., People v. District Court, 713 P.2d at 921; Massey v. District Court, 180 Colo. 359, 364, 506 P.2d 128, 130 (1973). Subsection 16-12-102(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986), provides in relevant The prosecution may appeal any decision of the trial cou......
-
People v. Runningbear
...give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts. People v. District Court, 713 P.2d at 921; Massey v. District Court, 180 Colo. 359, 506 P.2d 128 (1973). We presume that the General Assembly intends a just and reasonable result when it enacts a statute, and a statutory ......
-
Martinez v. Continental Enterprises
...Services v. Board of County Commissioners, 697 P.2d 1 (Colo.1985); Watson v. People, 700 P.2d 544 (Colo.1985); Massey v. District Court, 180 Colo. 359, 506 P.2d 128 (1973). A statute must also be construed to further the legislative intent evidenced by the entire statutory scheme. Public Em......
-
The Use of Court Appointed Experts and Masters in Civil Cases
...judges who responded, even if it was to inform that they had no experience in appointing masters or experts. [30] Massey v. Dist. Court, 506 P.2d 128, 131 (Colo. 1973) (recognizing that a court appointed medical expert is not a “partisan, but is, in effect, the court’s witness”). See also L......
-
Mental Disabilities Law Issues
...of a sympathetic psychiatrist, he or she would doubtless be felled by the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Massey v. District Court, 506 P.2d 128 (1973). The court, citing favorably Chief Justice Burger's opinion in Proctor v. Harris, declared that in an incompetency hearing, "A court-a......
-
Mental Disabilities Law Issues
...right to have the state pay for his experts, but does not give him the right to select any particular expert [Massey v. District Court, 180 Colo. 359, 506 P.2d 128 (1973)]. After a verdict of N.G.R.I., a defendant is committed until such time as he is eligible for release [C.R.S. 1973, § 16......
-
When Worlds Collide: Mentally Ill Criminal Defendants-part I
...at text accompanying note 48, infra. 31. CRS § 16-8-106(1). 32. CRS § 16-8-108(1). 33. CRS § 16-8-108(2). 34. Massey v. District Court, 506 P.2d 128 (Colo. 35. CRS § 16-8-106(3)(b). 36. Id. 37. No cases are reported under this section of the statute, but see text accompanying note 49, infra......