State v. Olin

• Decision Date: 09 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 13080,13080
• Citation: 648 P.2d 203,103 Idaho 391
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Terry Dale OLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 203

648 P.2d 203

103 Idaho 391

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Terry Dale OLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13080.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

July 9, 1982.

Robert E. Kinney, Orofino, for defendant-appellant.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

BAKES, Chief Justice.

On October 26, 1977, the Orofino police discovered the body of Ralph Peterson at his residence in Orofino, Idaho. Peterson had been stabbed to death, and a few articles of personal property, including an automobile, had been taken from the residence. That same day, the Clearwater County sheriff learned that the deceased's automobile was in the possession of Binkley Auto Sales in Lewiston, Idaho, and that the car had been traded to Binkley's by the defendant Terry Olin on October 14, 1977.

Shortly following these discoveries, Olin surrendered to the Kootenai County sheriff's office, having been informed by relatives that the police were looking for him. Olin told an investigating officer, and later testified at trial, that, immediately preceding the killing, Peterson had forced the defendant to commit an unnatural sex act at knifepoint, and that he had then killed Peterson to defend himself from a further attempted sexual assault. Olin indicated that he then took the automobile and other property only after deciding that the police would never believe his account of the incident.

In November, 1977, the defendant was charged by information with the crimes of grand larceny and first degree murder. Subsequently, he filed a notice of intent to rely upon the defense of mental disease or defect. Pursuant to this notice and defendant's motion, the court ordered that the director of Health and Welfare appoint two psychiatrists to conduct a mental evaluation of the defendant and to submit a report. Olin was then sent to the Idaho Security Medical Facility for that purpose. An evaluation was conducted, and a report prepared which indicated that the defendant had a history of family and physical problems which inhibited his ability to learn. His verbal skills tested in the dull-normal range, I.Q. 79, but mental performance tested at high normal, I.Q. 110. The report concluded that the defendant was competent to stand trial. However, the report failed to specifically state an opinion as to Olin's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the crime, as required under I.C. § 18-211(3)(d). There was also some question as to whether the defendant had been adequately examined by two psychiatrists as required by the trial court's order. Consequently, after receiving a copy of the evaluation, the defendant filed a motion to contest the findings contained therein, and to exclude the report as not being in compliance with the court's order.

A hearing was held on April 3, 1978, and Dr. Azar, a psychiatrist, and two psychologists employed by the Idaho Security Medical Facility testified at the hearing. All three of the witnesses had participated in the testing and evaluation of the defendant, and there was testimony to the effect that a second psychiatrist, Dr. Estes, had also participated in the evaluation. At the hearing, Dr. Azar testified that although the opinion concerning the defendant's mental capacity at the time the crime was committed had been inadvertently omitted from the report, his conclusion was that the defendant in fact was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the incident involved. While criticizing a number of irregularities in the evaluation of the defendant, the court determined that the defendant had received an adequate evaluation and that the testimony of Dr. Azar cured the deficiencies in the evaluation report.

Subsequently, the defendant submitted a motion for the allowance of public funds to obtain an additional psychiatric evaluation. This motion was denied. Next, the defendant moved for the allowance of public funds to obtain a transcript of the mental evaluation hearing. Counsel for the defense argued that the transcript was essential for preparation of the defense of mental disease or defect; however, this motion was also denied. At trial the defendant did not further pursue the defense of mental disease or defect. The defendant was convicted of both grand larceny and first degree murder. The defendant appeals only his conviction for first degree murder.

I

It is first asserted on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for the allowance of public funds to obtain another psychiatric evaluation, and to also obtain a transcript of the hearing contesting the findings of the mental evaluation. The defendant argues that the provision of public funds for these purposes is required by I.C. § 19-852(a), as well as by the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment.

I.C. § 19-852(a) provided the following at the time of the defendant's trial:

"19-852. RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF NEEDY PERSON-REPRESENTATION AT ALL STAGES OF CRIMINAL AND COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS-PAYMENT.-(a) A needy person who is being detained by a law enforcement officer, or who is under formal charge of having committed, or is being detained under a conviction of, a serious crime, is entitled:

(1) to be represented by an attorney to the same extent as a person having his own counsel is so entitled; and

(2) to be provided with the necessary services and facilities of representation (including investigation and other preparation). The attorney, services, and facilities and the court costs shall be provided at public expense to the extent that the person is, at the time the court determines need, unable to provide for their payment."

The statute recognizes that there are cases where a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial may be jeopardized unless there is access not only to an attorney, but also to certain specialized aid in the preparation of a defense. State v. Powers, 96 Idaho 833, 838, 537 P.2d 1369, 1374 (1975). Included within the scope of I.C. § 19-852(a) are the fourteenth amendment requirements of due process and equal protection as they apply to indigent defendants. In Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227, 92 S.Ct. 431, 433, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), the United States Supreme Court made it clear that "state(s) must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners." It is equally evident that if a defendant is denied access to the basic tools of an adequate defense, then he has also been denied his due process right of a fair trial. See Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956). However, what constitutes the basic tools or necessary services of an adequate defense has not been clearly defined, Britt v. North Carolina, supra; State v. Coronado, 98 Idaho 421, 423, 565 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1977), and may indeed vary from case to case. See State v. Powers, 96 Idaho at 838, 537 P.2d at 1374. Consequently, in order to determine under I.C. § 19-852(a) whether the requested services in the present case were necessary in order to provide the defendant with an adequate defense, we must review the requests individually.

A. Psychiatric examination.

The constitution does not require a state to provide expert or investigative assistance merely because a defendant requests it. United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. 561, 568, 73 S.Ct. 391, 394, 97 L.Ed. 549 (1953); Watson v. Patterson, 358 F.2d 297, 298 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 876, 87 S.Ct. 153, 17 L.Ed.2d 103 (1966). Rather, a defendant's request for expert or investigative services should be reviewed in light of all the circumstances and be measured against the standard of "fundamental fairness" embodied in the due process clause. Watson v. Patterson, supra; State v. Lee, 221 Kan. 109, 558 P.2d 1096, 1101 (1976). In accord with these principles, we have stated in applying I.C. § 19-852(a) to expert and investigative services that

"(f)inancial assistance is not automatically mandatory, but rather depends upon (the) needs of the defendant as revealed by the facts and circumstances of each case. Before authorizing the expenditure of public funds for a particular purpose in an indigent's defense, the trial court must determine whether the funds are necessary in the interest of justice." State v. Powers, 96 Idaho at 838, 537 P.2d at 1374.

See Mason v. Arizona, 504 F.2d 1345, 1352 (9th Cir. 1974) cert. denied 420 U.S. 936, 95 S.Ct. 1145, 43 L.Ed.2d 412 (1975). It is thus incumbent upon the trial court to inquire into the needs of the defendant and the circumstances of the case, and then make a determination of whether an adequate defense will be available to the defendant without the requested expert or investigative aid. If the answer is in the negative, then the services are necessary and must be provided by the state. Such a review necessarily involves the exercise of the sound discretion of the trial court. Griffin v. State, 415 N.E.2d 60 (Ind.1981); State v. Burnett, 222 Kan. 162, 563 P.2d 451, 454 (1977); see Annot., 34 A.L.R.3d 1256, 1269-72 (1970); cf. State v. Kerrigan, 98 Idaho 701, 571 P.2d 762 (1977) (preliminary matter of application for bail addressed to the sound discretion of the court). Consequently, a denial of a request for expert or investigative assistance will not be disturbed absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion by rendering a decision which is clearly erroneous and unsupported by the circumstances of the case.

In the case at bar, the defendant requested financial assistance to obtain another mental examination by a psychiatrist. Most significant is that this request was in addition to the psychiatric examination mandated and...