State v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 07 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-K-0056,82-K-0056
• Citation: 419 So.2d 840
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Charles Lee ROGERS.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 840

419 So.2d 840

STATE of Louisiana v. Charles Lee ROGERS.

No. 82-K-0056.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1982.

Timothy R. Fischer, Shreveport, Caddo Parish Indigent Defender Office for relator.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul Carmouche, Dist. Atty., Sonia Peters, Carey T. Schimpf, James C. McMichael, Jr., Dale G. Cox, Asst. Dist. Attys., for respondent.

DENNIS, Justice.

A writ of certiorari was granted to evaluate the trial court's finding that the defendant, Charles Lee Rogers, has the mental capacity to stand trial for aggravated rape. After the defendant's indictment on March 10, 1981, his defense counsel, by motion, raised the question of defendant's mental capacity to proceed. The trial court ordered a mental examination of the defendant, indicating that the judge had reasonable grounds to doubt the defendant's mental capacity to proceed. La.C.Cr.P. art. 643. Pursuant to this order, the court appointed a sanity commission consisting of two psychiatrists to examine and report on the mental condition of the defendant. Subsequently, at a contradictory hearing on May 20, 1981, the trial court received testimony pertaining to the defendant's mental capacity to proceed from the two psychiatrists, two police officers and an attorney who represented the defendant in a prior criminal case. The two psychiatrists testified that defendant was mentally retarded to the extent that he lacked the mental capacity to proceed. At the close of the contradictory hearing, the trial court ordered transcribed the recording of defendant's plea of guilty to a prior offense of sexual battery. The recording was never transcribed, however, because of the retirement of the court reporter. Following the court's discovery that the transcript would not be available, the judge appointed a third psychiatrist to examine and report on the mental condition of the defendant and ordered a second contradictory hearing.

At the second hearing, which was held on November 23, 1981, the trial court received testimony from the third psychiatrist and additional testimony from one of the psychiatrists it had originally appointed. The third psychiatrist testified that the defendant had the mental capacity to proceed. At the close of the second contradictory hearing, the trial court declared that the defendant had the mental capacity to proceed and ordered that the criminal prosecution should be resumed.

The trial court indicated in its oral reasons that its determination was based entirely on the testimony of the third psychiatrist. Although we agree with the trial court's apparent conclusion that the lay testimony of the police officers and the defense counsel was of little probative value on the question of defendant's mental capacity, we think its ultimate decision was clearly erroneous.

Essentially, the testimony of the police officers indicated that the defendant appeared to them to be coherent during their conversation with him during investigations of the present offense and a prior crime. The defendant's former defense counsel testified that he permitted the defendant to accept a favorable plea bargain offered by the state in the previous case, although he questioned the defendant's ability to understand his rights. However, the defense counsel said he would have raised the question of the defendant's mental capacity to proceed in the absence of a favorable plea bargain. Obviously, the testimony of these lay witnesses, most of which concern a previous case, did not result from objective expert analyses of the defendant's present mental capacity to stand trial for aggravated rape and was not based on tests or interviews designed to gather information pertinent to such an inquiry.

Dr. Norman Mauroner, the third doctor appointed by the court, disagreed with the two psychiatrists originally appointed. He testified that the defendant is mildly mentally retarded, with an I. Q. roughly estimated between 60 and 70, and is mentally able to assist counsel at trial. He answered affirmatively when asked if the defendant could understand the nature of the charges, probably understand the defenses available, understand his legal rights and the possible verdicts, maintain a consistent defense, detect distortions in witnesses' testimony, and decide whether to take the witness stand. He testified that the defendant could "possibly" help locate witnesses, assist "to a degree" in examining witnesses, and understand the consequences of a conviction if it were explained to him, although "he did not appreciate what he might get as a penalty from the charge that he has against him now." However, Dr. Mauroner gave little factual basis for his conclusions. Except for what the doctor called his "interaction" with the defendant during a one-hour interview, his opinion was based on the defendant's ability to recall the phone number and the city block number at his mother's house where he resided, his place of employment, his involvement in an automobile accident in 1970 or 1971, as well as the defendant's statement that he had dropped out of school in the eighth grade. Dr. Mauroner did not determine whether the defendant had been socially promoted in school, and none of the doctors inquired as to whether he could read or write. At the conclusion of this direct testimony, Dr. Mauroner, somewhat equivocally, stated, "I would like to make a correction. I'm only saying that I feel that he could assist his attorney. I'm not saying that he's competent. That's someone else's department." Nevertheless, although he conceded that a psychological test would be the most accurate means of determining the level of defendant's mental retardation, he insisted that a test result showing even severe mental retardation would not cause him to change his opinion that the defendant could assist counsel at trial.

Dr. Joe B. Hayes, one of the original psychiatrists appointed by the court, testified that the defendant is severely mentally retarded with an estimated I. Q. between 50 and 55, and is mentally incapable of effectively participating in a criminal prosecution. Dr. Hayes administered a Kent Emergency Intelligence Test to the defendant and the result indicated that his intelligence level was below that of a three-year-old child. Dr. Hayes also questioned the defendant using a five page judicial commitment check list and another check list recommended by the Academy of Law and Psychiatry. The doctor testified that the defendant could not conceptualize the crime of rape and did not understand that a nonconsensual sexual act is wrong. Also, he stated that the defendant could not understand the defenses of alibi or insanity. He reported that the defendant had extreme difficulty in recalling events and circumstances and concluded that he would not be able to assist in his defense by recalling his whereabouts, locating witnesses or testifying without confusion and contradiction. Dr. Hayes testified that the...