Miles v. State
Citation | 408 So.2d 158 |
Decision Date | 23 June 1981 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 546 |
Parties | Eddie B. MILES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas E. Jones, Auburn, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Marda J. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant was indicted and convicted for the murder of Willie Lockhart. Alabama Code 1975, Section 13A-6-2 (Amended 1977). Sentence was life imprisonment.
Initially the defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for an additional investigation into his sanity.
The trial court granted the defendant's pretrial "motion for the investigation of the sanity of defendant at both the time of the alleged offense and presently." Pursuant to this order the defendant was examined by Robert Rose, a psychologist with the East Alabama Comprehensive Mental Health Clinic. The findings of Dr. Rose were received by the court and by defense counsel the day before the trial date. When the defendant's case was called for trial, defense counsel filed the motion for additional investigation of the defendant's sanity.
In denying this second motion, the trial judge made the following remarks:
While the report filed by Dr. Rose in compliance with the order of the trial court was neither offered nor admitted into evidence, Dr. Rose testified at trial on behalf of the defendant.
After testing the defendant, Dr. Rose found his intellectual performance "grossly deficient"; "on some items it was even below what you would expect of a two year old." This surprised Dr. Rose who had to entertain the possibility that the defendant was malingering or making himself appear worse than he really was.
"I had to entertain that possibility because I was faced with a man who had reportedly served in the Armed Forces, held a job for thirty-five years, been married and a parent; he could do all of these things and I had to entertain at least two possibilities to explain that: One was that he, for some reason, was on purpose making mistakes."
The second possibility was that "that type of low-level intellectual performance could represent a generalized brain deterioration." However, Dr. Rose could not positively state that the defendant was malingering:
The defendant had a history of mental disorder in his family and reported to Dr. Rose that he suffered hallucinations, which report Dr. Rose confirmed through the defendant's wife.
Dr. Rose also examined the defendant about his ability to understand his present situation:
The defendant could not tell Dr. Rose "what the jobs were that various people play in here, the jury, the judge, the prosecutor, his defense attorney." Dr. Rose testified that the defendant "sort of appeared" to have a "very passive agreement out of ignorance" with the way his attorney was handling the case. Although Dr. Rose testified that the defendant did understand that he was charged with murder, he was "ignorant" of the penalty. Some of the defendant's responses to Dr. Rose's questions reflected "a lack of ... appreciation of his situation." Dr. Rose thought that there was reason to question whether the defendant could comprehend "instructions and advice." The defendant had very little memory of "what had happened, as far as the facts."
Dr. Rose explained that there were three possible explanations for the repeated violent behavior of the defendant: (1) The "unsocialized behavior was not associated with any mental illness or mental condition"; (2) the behavior was related to a mental condition, a psychosis "out of touch with reality"; and (3) the violent episodes were associated with temporal lobe epilepsy. Dr. Rose found "a number of factors that are consistent with "possibility number two: the family incidence of mental illness, the defendant's reported incoherence and mumbling, hallucinations and test results. Dr. Rose stated that the defendant's behavior However, Dr. Rose could not give an opinion as to the cause of the defendant's behavior until the defendant had been examined by psychiatrists or neurologists.
After evaluation of the defendant, Dr. Rose offered three recommendations: (1) That the defendant was seriously enough depressed with a history of one suicide attempt, that his family should be advised that they should "keep a close eye on him because that (suicide) was a very real possibility"; (2) that the defendant be evaluated by psychiatrists or possibly a neurologist, depending on what the psychiatrist said; and (3) the third recommendation was a period of observing his behavior in a controlled hospital setting to either rule in or rule out whether or not some psychotic conditions existed.
Dr. Rose did not determine that the defendant was competent to stand trial:
Dr. Rose did find the defendant's "performance very consistent with being incompetent."
Near the end of his report, Dr. Rose concluded that, because of the sharp contrast between the defendant's social functions, recent vocational functioning and the gross deficiencies in his intellectual test responses, there was a possibility that this inconsistency is "suggestive of a conscious attempt to appear mentally deficient."
Where the issue of competency to stand trial has been properly raised and when facts are present before the trial judge which create a reasonable and bona fide doubt as to the mental competency of the accused to stand trial, the trial judge must take steps to assure a reasonable legal determination of the defendant's competency. Atwell v. State, 354 So.2d 30, 35 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, Ex parte Atwell, 354 So.2d 39 (Ala.1978). The trial judge has an ongoing and continuing responsibility to prevent the trial of an accused unable to assist in his defense. Atwell, 354 So.2d at 37. A second determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial may be required under the same circumstances as an original determination would be required, that is, where there exist facts which raise a reasonable and bona fide doubt of the defendant's competency. Atwell, supra. An additional psychiatric examination of the accused may be warranted where the circumstances surrounding the initial examination justify a further inquiry in order to obtain a more conclusive evaluation of the accused's mental condition. See cases collected at 23 A.L.R.Fed. 738 (1975).
The issue in this case is complicated by the fact that there was never any finding made by the psychologist that the defendant was competent or incompetent to stand trial. In essence, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dearman v. State
... ... held that "[t]he trial judge is not bound by the ... conclusion and recommendation of an expert as to the ... competency of the accused." Bailey v. State, ... 421 So.2d 1364, 1366 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), citing Miles v ... State , 408 So.2d 158, 162 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) ... Additionally, ... this Court has stated: ... "'[T]he law is clear that "proof of the ... incompetency of an accused to stand trial involves more than ... simply showing that the accused ... ...
-
Ingram v. Stewart
...doubt exists as to the defendant's mental competency, and this is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Miles v. State, 408 So. 2d 158 (Ala. Cr. App. 1981), cert. denied, 408 So. 2d 163 (Ala. 1982). In determining whether an investigation into the defendant's sanity is required......
-
Ingram v. State
...doubt exists as to the defendant's mental competency, and this is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Miles v. State, 408 So.2d 158 (Ala.Cr. App.1981), cert. denied, 408 So.2d 163 (Ala.1982). In determining whether an investigation into the defendant's sanity is required, the......
-
Janezic v. State
...has an ongoing and continuing responsibility to prevent the trial of an accused unable to assist in his defense.' Miles v. State, 408 So.2d 158, 162 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), cert. denied, Ex parte Miles, 408 So.2d 163 The only testimony in the record pertaining to the issue of Janezic's competenc......