Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky denied Karu Gene White’s petition for a writ of prohibition challenging an order requiring him to undergo a mental-retardation evaluation at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center. The court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and that White failed to show irreparable injury not redressable by appeal. The court nevertheless directed the trial court to apply the expert-funding standard from Mills v. Messer before proceeding with the evaluation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the special circuit judge acted outside or erroneously within his jurisdiction by ordering White to undergo a Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center mental-retardation evaluation.
- Whether White demonstrated great injustice or irreparable injury that could not be redressed by an appeal from a final judgment, as required for a writ of prohibition.
- Whether the circuit court was required to apply the Mills v. Messer standard to determine whether private expert testimony was reasonably necessary for a full presentation of White's post-conviction claim.
Holdings
- The petition for a writ of prohibition was denied because White failed to demonstrate great injustice or irreparable injury that could not be remedied by an appeal from a final determination.
- Judge Payne's finding that the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center was capable of providing a competent evaluation was the functional equivalent of finding that use of the state facility was not impractical; therefore, the order was not erroneous solely for failure to repeat the word 'impractical.'
- On recommencement of the circuit court proceedings, the court must apply the Mills v. Messer standard and determine whether expert testimony is reasonably necessary for a full presentation of White's case; if so, an expert should be appointed, and if not, the KCPC evaluation should proceed under the existing order.
Key quotations
“A writ of prohibition may be granted upon a showing that (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted.” (48)
“a petitioner may be entitled to state funds for the procurement of expert testimony upon a showing that such witness is reasonably necessary for a full presentation of the petitioner's case.” (49)
“In summary, because White has not identified an irreparable injury or great injustice which would result from, the KCPC evaluation, and which would not be redressable on appeal, we are constrained to deny his petition for a writ of prohibition.” (51)
Factual background
White, a death-row inmate convicted of three capital murders, claimed that he was mentally retarded and therefore constitutionally ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. His IQ had never been determined, but evidence of adaptive-behavior deficits led the circuit court to find sufficient doubt to warrant an evidentiary hearing. After an earlier order funding a private psychological evaluation was prohibited, Special Judge Payne found that the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center could competently conduct the evaluation and ordered White to submit to it.
Procedural history
White was convicted of three capital murders and three first-degree robberies in 1980 and received three death sentences. After Atkins v. Virginia, he sought post-conviction relief based on an alleged mental-retardation exemption from execution. The circuit court initially ordered state funding for a private expert, but the Supreme Court of Kentucky prohibited enforcement of that order in Commonwealth v. Paisley. On remand, Special Judge Payne ordered an evaluation by the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center, prompting White's present writ petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, while directing the circuit court to apply the expert-funding standard from Mills v. Messer.
Remand instructions
Upon recommencement of the circuit court proceedings, the court must apply the Mills standard and determine whether testimony from a mental-retardation expert is reasonably necessary for a full presentation of White's case. If so, an expert should be appointed; if not, the KCPC evaluation should proceed under Judge Payne's existing order.