Summary
The Arizona Supreme Court held that a defendant who asserts an insanity defense and voluntarily undergoes a mental health examination must disclose the complete report of a trial expert, including statements concerning the pending charges. The court concluded that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.4(b) does not permit redaction of those statements and disapproved Austin v. Alfred to the contrary. The court limited the use of the statements at trial to rebutting the insanity defense, vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, reversed the superior court’s order, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.4(b) requires a defendant who asserts an insanity defense and voluntarily undergoes a mental-health examination to disclose a complete copy of the trial expert's report, including statements concerning the pending charges.
- Whether the Fifth Amendment or Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.7(b)(1) prohibits disclosure of those statements.
- Whether disclosure of the statements waives work-product protection when the mental-health expert is listed as a trial witness.
Holdings
- Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.4(b), a defendant who asserts an insanity defense and voluntarily undergoes a mental-health examination must disclose a complete copy of the trial expert's report, including statements made by the defendant concerning the pending charges.
- The Fifth Amendment and Rule 11.7(b)(1) do not prevent disclosure of statements made during a voluntary mental-health examination when the defendant asserts an insanity defense.
- Disclosure of the statements does not make them generally admissible at trial; the State may use them only to rebut the defendant's insanity evidence and may not use them to prove guilt.
Key quotations
“We hold that, pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.4(b), a defendant who asserts an insanity defense and voluntarily undergoes a mental health exam must disclose a complete copy of the expert’s examination report, including any statements made by the defendant concerning the charges against him.” (at 415)
“Such statements are only admissible to rebut his insanity defense, and are not admissible to prove his guilt.” (at 419)
Factual background
Josh Rasmussen was indicted for armed robbery and felony murder and later asserted an insanity or guilty-except-insane defense. He voluntarily underwent mental-health examinations by a retained psychologist and a joint expert, and both experts prepared reports containing statements he made about the pending charges. The defense disclosed copies of the reports but redacted those statements, prompting the State to seek an order compelling production of complete reports.
Procedural history
Rasmussen was indicted for armed robbery and felony murder and asserted an insanity or guilty-except-insane defense. After defense and joint mental-health experts prepared reports containing Rasmussen's statements about the charges, the defense disclosed redacted reports. The superior court denied the State's motion to compel complete reports. The court of appeals granted special-action relief and ordered disclosure, but the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' opinion, reversed the superior court's order, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including enforcement of disclosure of the complete expert report and ensuring that any use of the statements is closely tailored to rebutting the insanity defense.