Section 16.44 Report of Court-Ordered Mental Examination of Accused Who Pleaded Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect

• Library: Evidence 2017

D. (§16.44) Report of Court-Ordered Mental Examination of Accused Who Pleaded Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect

A person may plead as an affirmative defense to a criminal charge that “as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person’s conduct” at the time of the crime. Section 552.030.1, RSMo 2016. Compare MAI-CR 4^th 406.02, Mental Disease or Defect Excluding Responsibility, with MAI-CR 4^th 408.03, Mental Disease or Defect Negating Culpable Mental State. If such a plea is entered, the court is required to order a mental examination of the accused. Section 552.030.3. If the court previously entered an order under § 552.020, RSMo 2016, to determine whether the defendant was competent to stand trial, that report—if it made findings as to whether the accused at the time of the offense knew or appreciated the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of the accused’s conduct—may be received in evidence, and no new examination is needed unless the court decides that a second one is necessary. Section 552.030.3. Cf. State ex rel. Proctor v. Bryson, 100 S.W.3d 775 (Mo. banc 2003) (any examination under § 552.030 must be requested by the defendant on a not guilty by reason of insanity defense).

During the course of this mental examination, the defendant will likely make statements about the crime that may be incriminating or exculpatory. In either case, the statements made to the mental examiner are not admissible on the issue of the defendant’s guilt, only on the accused’s mental condition. Section 552.030.5. See MAI-CR 4^th 406.04 regarding the limitation of expert testimony in the criminal trial.

In State v. Frezzell, 958 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998), the defendant offered statements he made during his court-ordered psychiatric examination in support of his affirmative defense that he believed the victim of statutory sodomy to be over 17 years of age. The court held that the evidence was inadmissible for that purpose because the statute prohibits using statements from the psychiatric examination by either the prosecution or the defense on any issue except the defendant’s mental state. Frezzell, 958 S.W.2d at 106.

Likewise, no statements made by a defendant or information received by an examiner during the course of a mental examination to determine the accused’s...