State ex rel. Jordon v. Mehan, 42343

Decision Date08 April 1980
Docket NumberNo. 42343,42343
PartiesSTATE ex rel. Reginald JORDON, Relator, v. Hon. Richard J. MEHAN, Judge, Twenty Second Judicial Circuit, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Sara Harmon, Asst. Public Defender, Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, Linda Murphy, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for relator.

George Peach, Circuit Atty., Mark A. Brown, St. Louis, for respondent.

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

This matter is before us following our issuance of a preliminary writ of prohibition directed to respondent. The parties have filed a stipulation of facts which reads in pertinent part as follows:

"STATEMENT OF FACTS

Relator has been charged with Murder, Second Degree and awaits trial in Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. The Court determined relator to be indigent and the Public Defender has been appointed to represent him. Relator contends he is in need of a psychiatric expert to conduct a mental examination and aid relator and his counsel in determining whether or not to proceed with a defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Relator is without sufficient funds to hire a psychiatrist on his own and must rely on Section 552.030 R.S.Mo. 1978 to secure the services of a Court appointed psychiatrist. 1

On August 29, 1979, Attorney for Relator filed a Motion for Appointment of a Psychiatrist pursuant to Section 552.030. A First Amended Motion for a Psychiatric Exam was subsequently filed requesting that a confidential written report of such examination be prepared and delivered to attorney for defendant and that no non-confidential or any other type report be made available to the State. This request is contrary to the provisions of Section 552.030.4 which provides that a written report or reports of such examination be filed with the clerk of the Court and that the clerk shall deliver copies of the report or reports to the Circuit Attorney and to the accused or his counsel.

On September 19, relator's motion was heard in Division 16, of the 22nd Judicial Circuit in front of the Honorable Richard J. Mehan, the respondent in the action. Respondent denied relator's motion but later set aside the order denying the motion. Respondent subsequently notified relator of his intent to deny relator's first amended motion for Appointment of a Psychiatrist for the reason that the prayer of that motion requests that the Court restrict the delivery of the confidential written report of the psychiatrist to the attorney for defendant. 2

On December 14, 1979, the Court of Appeals granted relator's petition for a Writ of Prohibition. Respondent filed a Return to the Writ of Prohibition of December 27, 1979."

Relator challenges the order of the trial court on the basis that the order denying him a confidential psychiatric report denies him his constitutional rights contrary to (1) the equal protection clause, (2) the due process clause, (3) the assistance of counsel clause and (4) the self-incrimination clause.

Respondent has raised a question concerning our jurisdiction on the basis that the relator is challenging the constitutionality of Sec. 552.030.4, 3 and jurisdiction is therefore vested in the Supreme Court. The Constitution of Missouri gives exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all cases involving the validity of a statute of this State. Mo.Const., Art. V, Sec. 3. We have concurrent jurisdiction with that court on original remedial writs. Mo.Const., Art. V, Sec. 4. This case involves an original remedial writ and we have jurisdiction even though resolution of that writ may require a determination of the validity of a statute. State ex rel. Campbell v. Anderson, 536 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.App.1976); State ex rel. City of Mansfield v. Crain, 301 S.W.2d 415 (Mo.App.1957).

The thrust of relator's position is that the statutory provisions of 552.030 require that the psychiatric examination ordered under that section be reduced to a written report, that the report be filed with the clerk of the court, and that the report be delivered to defense counsel and the prosecutor. Relator contends that this non-confidential report effectively precludes him from having a psychiatrist appointed at state expense to examine relator to determine whether he should assert a defense based upon mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. This he contends denies him constitutional rights available to non-indigent defendants contrary to Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). We need not reach these constitutional claims for we have concluded that relator has misunderstood the purpose and scope of Sec. 552.030.

That section is applicable only to a situation in which the defendant has pleaded the defense of mental disease or defect or given notice that he intends to rely upon that defense. Stroder v. State, 522 S.W.2d 77 (Mo.App.1975) (10-13). Relator's motion for psychiatric examination contained specific notification of his intent to rely on the defense. When the defense has been invoked, the court, upon motion of either the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1983
    ...following the statute and denying the requested examination. State v. Ingram, 607 S.W.2d 438, 440-41 (Mo.1980); State ex rel. Jordon v. Mehan, 597 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.App.1980). Defendant alleges several claims of trial error. In ruling on these points we take account of the very strong evidence......
  • State v. McGautha
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 1981
    ... ... 441, 448(4), 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1658, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); State ex rel. North v. Kirtley, 327 S.W.2d 166, 170(5) (Mo. banc 1959). The privilege ... Jordon v. Mehan, 597 S.W.2d 724, 726(2, 3) (Mo.App.1980)) who may thereafter ... ...
  • State v. Drisdel
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 4, 2014
    ...disease or defect and the State the opportunity to examine the defendant through the use of a neutral expert. State ex rel. Jordan v. Mehan, 597 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Mo.App. E.D.1980). When a defendant voluntarily places his mental condition into controversy he is subject to a mental examinatio......
  • McDonald v. Bowersox
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 23, 1997
    ...was unreasonable because such a strategy had already been rejected by the Missouri Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Jordon v. Mehan, 597 S.W.2d 724 (Mo.Ct.App.1980). Jordon, however, is readily distinguishable from McDonald's Jordon held that persons invoking Mo.Rev.Stat. § 552.030 were no......
  • 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