McKenna v. State
| Citation | 639 P.2d 557,98 Nev. 38 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 12795,12795 |
| Parties | Patrick Charles McKENNA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Howard C. Jones, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Richard H. Bryan, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Robert Miller, Dist. Atty., James Tufteland, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
Patrick Charles McKenna appeals from a conviction for murder for which he was sentenced to death. At issue is whether the trial court erred in permitting a court appointed psychiatrist who examined McKenna to testify as to admissions made by McKenna during his psychiatric examination.
A psychiatrist, Franklin D. Master, M.D., was appointed by the court under NRS 178.415 to inquire into the sanity of McKenna. During the psychiatrist's examination, McKenna apparently discussed the circumstances surrounding the murder of a cellmate at the Clark County jail. Over the defendant's objection, the psychiatrist was permitted to testify at trial that McKenna had admitted he had "exploded and killed J. J. Nobles."
We have recently held that statements made by a defendant to a psychiatrist during a court ordered mental examination may not be used to impeach the defendant's testimony. Esquivel v. State, 96 Nev. 777, 617 P.2d 587 (1980). In Esquivel we commented, 96 Nev. at 778, 617 P.2d at 587.
We think that the same rationale applies to the case before us. Fair play does indeed dictate that our trial courts not appoint a psychiatrist to examine an accused and then employ the confidential contents of the interview to obtain a conviction. We agree with the decision in Collins v. Auger, 428 F.Supp. 1079 (S.D.Iowa 1977), that the introduction of this kind of evidence violates the defendant's right to due process.
(I)t is fundamentally unfair to use defendant's incriminating admissions to a psychiatrist during a psychiatric examination as part of the prosecution's case to establish his guilt. It is immaterial whether the court ordered examination was at the request of defendant or the prosecution or whether it was to determine his capacity to aid in his own defense or his mental condition at the time of the crime. Id. at 1082. 1
Furthermore, it would be impossible to meet the objectives of a court appointed examination if the defendant knew that his statements could be used to convict him. McKenna's right to due process guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment was therefore violated by the introduction of evidence concerning admissions made to a court appointed psychiatrist.
Since admission of this testimony amounted to a violation of federal constitutional rights, we are obliged to apply the test established in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1966). This court must be able to declare its belief that the constitutional error complained of was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828.
The comments made by McKenna were a primary component of the prosecution's case. In arguing for admission of the doctor's testimony the prosecutor stated that the testimony was necessary to obtain a conviction since the remaining case was "somewhat tenuous." 2 Applying the Chapman standard, it is within the realm of possibility that, absent the constitutionally forbidden admissions contained in the psychiatrist's testimony, honest, fair-minded jurors might have brought in a lesser verdict. Under these circumstances, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dzul v. State
...245. 81. Id. 82. Lile, ___ U.S. at ___, 122 S.Ct. at 2041 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 83. Id. at ___, 122 S.Ct. at 2023. 84. 98 Nev. 38, 39, 639 P.2d 557, 558 (1982). ...
-
Estes v. State
...In resolving these claims, we must first clarify our jurisprudence concerning the use of such evidence as stated in Esquivel v. State,4 McKenna v. State,5 Brown v. State,6 Winiarz v. State7 and DePasquale v. In Esquivel, we reversed a conviction based upon the State's use of statements made......
-
McKenna v. State
...improperly allowed appellant's psychiatrist to testify to admissions appellant made during a psychiatric examination. McKenna v. State, 98 Nev. 38, 639 P.2d 557 (1982). In September 1982, after a second trial and penalty hearing, appellant was again convicted of one count of first degree mu......
-
McKenna v. State
...conviction and sentence. 1 This was McKenna's second trial on this charge. The first conviction was reversed in McKenna v. State, 98 Nev. 38, 639 P.2d 557 (1982).2 January 5, 1979 was the day McKenna was convicted of one count of robbery, two counts of second degree kidnapping with a weapon......