State v. Caril

Decision Date29 August 2022
Docket Number82334-5-I
Parties The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Leon CARIL, II, Appellant.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

PUBLISHED OPINION

Birk, J.

¶1 Leon Caril, II, appeals his conviction and sentence for second degree murder. He asserts he was in a state of compromised mental health when he stabbed and killed a person. At trial, Caril, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia

, called an expert psychologist who testified that Caril lacked the capacity to form criminal intent at the time of the incident. The trial court allowed this testimony, but prohibited Caril's expert witness from testifying to hearsay statements from another psychologist's report that the expert relied on, because the excluded statements concerned the collateral issues of Caril's competency to stand trial and potential future need for civil commitment. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding this evidence, and Caril's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense was not violated. The State concedes several errors that require resentencing. We affirm Caril's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing.

I
A

¶2 During the night of June 22-23, 2017, Russell Ross, Tammy Nguyen, and Andrew Pimenthal spent part of the night with a group of friends in an evening out. In the early morning hours, they obtained take-out meals and sat on the curb outside the restaurant to eat as they conversed. From across the street, an individual shouted, "[S]hut the fuck up," and threw a two-liter soda bottle in their direction, which landed by their feet. Ross shouted back that throwing the bottle was a "good way to get your ass kicked."

¶3 Ross observed the individual, later identified as Caril, start across the street towards the group brandishing a knife. Ross told everyone to "run" and that the approaching individual had a knife. Nguyen and Ross withdrew, but Pimenthal was not able to do so in time. While running away, Ross saw Caril stab Pimenthal. Nguyen saw Caril "punch" Pimenthal three times in the chest. Jaapir Hussen, who observed these events from his car nearby, exited his vehicle and shouted at Caril asking if he was "crazy" and "why" he stabbed Pimenthal. Caril asked Hussen if he "want[ed] some too." Pimenthal died from his injuries.

¶4 Ross summoned the police. Caril walked back across the street. Carson Williams was informed by people in the area that Caril was the one who stabbed Pimenthal, Williams started following Caril, and he saw Caril stuff something into a suitcase. Carson dialed 911, informing Caril that he was doing so. Caril replied, "[D]o you know who I am. I am the man who just stabbed someone." Police responding to the 911 call located Caril. Officer Zachary Pendt asked Caril if he had a knife, which Caril confirmed was in his bag. Caril complied with the responding officers’ requests and was cooperative. The officers did not find any medication among Caril's belongings. The State charged Caril with murder in the second degree, and later added murder in the first degree by amended information.

B

¶5 In 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016, Caril was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia

. Before the June 23, 2017 incident, Caril had a long-term housing placement and he had long-term outpatient treatment through Sound Mental Health. On June 16, 2017, Caril lost his housing after engaging in an altercation with another resident. And he lost his outpatient treatment services on July 12, 2017 due to his arrest and incarceration related to Pimenthal's murder.

¶6 On October 3, 2018, the superior court entered an order finding Caril incompetent and committing him to Western State Hospital (WSH) for a restoration period of 90 days. On October 30, 2018, Daniel Peredes-Ruiz, MD requested that the State seek judicial authority for WSH to treat Caril with antipsychotic medications involuntarily, since he had been unwilling to actively participate in treatment. In a competency assessment completed by Brandi Lane, PsyD, which was attached to the request letter, Dr. Lane concluded that Caril lacked the capacity to assist in his defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Additionally, Caril was said to have ongoing delusional thinking, disorganized thought process, grandiose thinking, and poor judgment. On February 7, 2019, the superior court entered an order granting the State's motion for involuntary medication for maintenance of competency.

¶7 On January 10, 2019, Jenna Tomei, PhD, completed a competency evaluation report of Caril. In her report, Dr. Tomei opined that Caril met diagnostic criteria for unspecified schizophrenia

spectrum and other psychotic disorder and had the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense. Dr. Tomei's report stated that previously observed symptoms appeared to be well managed with Caril's then current medication regimen. Before the court order allowing for Caril to be involuntarily medicated, Caril had been described as "resistant," "guarded," "isolative," "withdrawn," and "suspicious" while at WSH. Additionally, Dr. Tomei's report noted that before being involuntarily medicated, Caril had been involved in a physical altercation and had yelled at others in competency restoration groups.

¶8 Dr. Tomei's report contrasted these characteristics to those observed after Caril was involuntarily medicated. The report described Caril as appearing to be more reality-based compared to his prior evaluation with no overt delusional thought

processes. At the end of the report, Dr. Tomei stated, "If Mr. Caril were to discontinue his prescribed medication, he would likely decompensate. In such an event, he may or may not continue to present with the requisite capacities to proceed." Dr. Tomei concluded the report with an "RCW 71.05" (behavioral health detention) recommendation noting Caril "exhibited aggression towards others during times of decompensation." It stated a designated crisis responder (DCR) would be required to assess Caril for commitment if there was a change in his "custodial situation."

¶9 On April 17, 2019, the superior court entered an order finding Caril competent to proceed to trial.

C

¶10 After the State rested its case-in-chief, Caril called Paul Spizman, PsyD as a defense expert. Dr. Spizman is a licensed forensic psychologist in Washington. Dr. Spizman has experience working with individuals who suffer from schizophrenia

. While explaining general characteristics of schizophrenia, Dr. Spizman described it as a manageable mental illness, as opposed to a curable one, as some cases may go into "a type of remission." Dr. Spizman posited two hypothetical patients suffering from schizophrenia to illustrate the ebb and flow in severity of symptoms: a patient who is homeless and engaging in substance abuse would be under great stress and likely show more symptoms compared to one who is medicated, living in a stable environment, and with less stress, who may demonstrate relatively minimal symptoms. Dr. Spizman testified that medication is the primary method for treating schizophrenia. Dr. Spizman testified that a person suffering from schizophrenia who is taking medication is statistically more likely to have a reduction in or not experience any symptoms. Dr. Spizman stated that on many occasions, symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia are triggered from environmental factors, such as a car driving by one's house. He testified that "[f]or a person who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and is not taking their or may not be taking their prescribed medications, ... there [is] concern that they could act aggressively." When asked about what can trigger aggression from a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, Dr. Spizman testified that the trigger could be fairly benign stimuli, such as someone walking down the street talking on a cellphone or a group of people having a general conversation.

¶11 Dr. Spizman diagnosed Caril with schizophrenia

and testified that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. He testified to his opinions specific to Caril and the June 23, 2017 incident. Dr. Spizman explained he formed his opinions after reviewing police reports and associated witness accounts of that incident, written materials Caril sent his attorneys, two interviews with Caril, Caril's mental health records, and Dr. Tomei's competency evaluation report. Dr. Spizman testified that Caril's delusions were the most prominent symptom on the morning of the incident. He stated that at the time of the incident, Caril was interpreting information around him as being directed toward him and believed Pimenthal and his friends were making statements toward and about him. Dr. Spizman testified that Caril said he did not know right from wrong at the time of the incident. And Caril had reported to Dr. Spizman that Caril consumed approximately half a gallon of vodka from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Dr. Spizman opined that Caril's mental illness impaired his ability to form premeditated intent to kill Pimenthal.

¶12 Caril's counsel questioned Dr. Spizman about Dr. Tomei's report and whether it mentioned "what would happen if Caril decompensated." Dr. Spizman answered he did not recall. Defense counsel sought to point Dr. Spizman to the disputed section of Dr. Tomei's report when the State objected on hearsay grounds.

¶13 In an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel indicated he had planned to ask Dr. Spizman to relate statements from the following paragraphs in Dr. Tomei's report:

It should be noted that the current evaluation took place during a time when Mr. Caril was compliant with his psychiatric medication. If Mr. Caril were to discontinue his prescribed medication, he would
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Bartch
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 2023
    ...such cases. 99 Wn.2d at 16. A trial court's ER 403 ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Caril, 23 Wn.App. 2d 416, 427, 515 P.3d 1036 (2022), review denied, 200 Wn.2d 522 P.3d 50 (2023). "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exer......
  • City of Seattle v. Wiggins
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 2022
    ... ... , WA, 99336-2359, for Respondent.PUBLISHED OPINION Hazelrigg, J.1 Roosevelt Wiggins moved pretrial to exclude testimony from a Washington State Patrol (WSP) Crime Laboratory reviewer as to the results of his blood draw, in the absence of testimony from the analyst who conducted the tests on ... ...

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