 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freeman v. State3/27/2002
contended that J.I.'s and Martin's psychological treatment records would contain relevant evidence about Martin's ability to testify truthfully. He therefore requested Judge Link to review Martin's and J.I.'s confidential records in camera and to turn over all discoverable material to him. Judge Link reviewed all the requested documents in camera and concluded that a psychiatric evaluation completed by Dr. Wald was discoverable. It appears from the record that Toppa's intake assessment of J.I. and treatment plan for Martin were disclosed to Freeman before the in camera hearing.
Based on this information, Freeman filed a motion for a court-ordered psychiatric examination of Martin. Freeman believed that Dr. Wald's psychiatric evaluation of Martin, conducted on July 8, 1998, indicated that Martin had been experiencing serious psychological problems at the time of the incident. He argued that he needed to have Martin undergo an additional, more in-depth psychological evaluation. Judge Link held an evidentiary hearing on November 10, 1999. Both Dr. Wald and Toppa presented testimony about their past and present treatment of Martin. Dr. Wald testified that he did not think Martin suffered from any mental illness and had no opinion whether Martin should undergo a second, more in-depth psychological examination. Upon direct questioning by Judge Link, Dr. Wald testified that Martin was not deceptive, could distinguish between truth and falsehood, and could perceive things accurately and that nothing indicated Martin could not recall the shootings. Dr. Wald stated that Martin was a "straight-forward presenter of information." Toppa's assessment was very similar - Martin could recall the shooting accurately and could testify truthfully.
Judge Link denied Freeman's motion for a court-ordered psychiatric examination and found "insufficient evidence to show that further psychological or psychiatric evaluation would yield any additional evidence."
The parties rely on Pickens v. State as controlling authority to determine whether Judge Link erred in refusing to require Martin to undergo a psychological examination. To obtain a court-ordered psychological evaluation of a witness, Pickens requires the defendant to show that (1) little or no evidence corroborates the witness's testimony and (2) good cause exists to believe that the witness's mental condition affected either the witness's ability to perceive the events in question or to accurately relate those events.
Freeman contends that nothing corroborates Martin's assertion that Freeman was the person who killed J.I. and Eason. But Martin's version of the offense was corroborated by the testimony of Christensen and Strange. Furthermore, the physical evidence (the location of the bodies, the location of the gunshot wounds, and the fact that both victims were killed by bullets fired from Freeman's gun) was consistent with Martin's version of the shootings. We conclude that Judge Link did not err in determining that the evidence corroborated Martin's testimony.
For the second requirement (i.e., that there is good cause to believe that Martin's perception or testimonial accuracy was impaired), Freeman relies on three items: (1) Toppa's intake assessment, (2) Toppa's recollection that J.I. told her Martin was exhibiting lying and deceitful behavior, and (3) a notation in Dr. Wald's psychiatric evaluation. However, upon direct questioning by Judge Link, Dr. Wald testified that Martin was not deceptive, nor did Dr. Wald receive any indications while treating Martin that he could not tell the truth. Toppa's assessment of Martin was nearly identical. She thought Martin could accurately recall the shootings, and she had no reas
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|