State v. Carneh, 153 Wash. 2d 274

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that RCW 10.77.020(3) creates a statutory privilege, distinct from the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, allowing a defendant undergoing a court-ordered sanity evaluation to refuse potentially incriminating questions. Exercising that privilege does not bar the defendant from presenting evidence supporting an insanity defense. The State may introduce limited evidence of the refusal only to explain why its experts could not form an opinion about the defendant's sanity, and the jury must be instructed not to infer sanity from the refusal.

Holdings

1. The State's notice for discretionary review was timely because the reviewable act was the trial court's May 13, 2003 order, not its earlier April 2 ruling.
2. RCW 10.77.020(3) creates a statutory privilege separate from and broader than the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and the statutory privilege is not waived when a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity.
3. A defendant's exercise of the privilege under RCW 10.77.020(3) does not bar the defendant from presenting evidence or expert testimony supporting an insanity defense.
4. The State's experts may refer to the defendant's refusal to answer questions only to explain why they were unable to form an opinion about the defendant's sanity; the trial court must, upon request, instruct the jury that it may not infer sanity from the refusal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State's notice for discretionary review was timely when filed on the same day as the trial court's order resolving the remedy for Carneh's refusal to answer questions.
2. Whether RCW 10.77.020(3) grants a defendant undergoing a court-ordered sanity evaluation a statutory privilege to refuse potentially incriminating questions even after pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.
3. Whether exercising the statutory privilege under RCW 10.77.020(3) bars a defendant from presenting evidence or expert testimony supporting an insanity defense.
4. Whether the State's experts may disclose the defendant's refusal to answer questions to explain why they could not form an opinion about his sanity, and whether a limiting instruction is required.

Disposition

affirmed