A. On request of the court or any party, with the consent of the defendant and after a determination that a reasonable basis exists to support the guilty except insane defense, the court shall appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the defendant and provide a written report that includes:
1. The mental status of the defendant at the time of the alleged offense.
2. If the qualified expert determines that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, the relationship of the mental disease or defect to the alleged offense.
B. Within ten days after appointment of the qualified expert, the parties shall provide all available medical records, mental health reports and criminal history records to the qualified expert. On notice to the court, the qualified expert may request additional records from the parties.
C. If the defendant provides a notice of a guilty except insane defense, the defense attorney shall nominate its own qualified expert to examine the defendant to determine the defendant's mental status at the time of the alleged offense. The state may call the same number of medical doctors and licensed psychologists who will testify on behalf of the defense.
D. If a defendant refuses to be examined by the state's qualified experts, the court shall preclude the defendant from offering expert evidence of the defendant's mental status at the time of the alleged offense.
E. The privilege of confidential communications between a qualified expert and the defendant as it relates to the defendant's mental status at the time of the alleged crime does not apply if any mental disability defense is raised.
F. If any mental disability defense is raised, both the state and the defendant shall receive before the trial complete copies of any report by a qualified expert who examines the defendant.
G. After a plea of guilty or after disposition of a matter where the defendant has pleaded guilty except insane, the court shall order all of the reports submitted pursuant to section 13-502 and this article sealed. The court may order that the reports be opened only as follows:
1. For use by the court or defendant, or by the prosecutor if otherwise allowed by law, for further competency or sanity evaluations or in a hearing to determine whether the defendant is eligible for court-ordered treatment pursuant to title 36, chapter 5 or is a sexually violent person.
2. For statistical analysis.
3. When the records are deemed necessary to assist in mental health treatment pursuant to section 13-502 or 13-4517.
4. For use by the probation department or by the state department of corrections if the defendant is in the custody of or is scheduled to be transferred into the custody of the state department of corrections to assess and supervise or monitor the defendant by that department.
5. For use by a mental health treatment provider that provides treatment to the defendant or that assesses the defendant for treatment.
6. For data gathering.
7. For scientific study.
H. Any statement that is made by the defendant during an examination that is conducted pursuant to this article or any evidence resulting from that statement is not subject to disclosure pursuant to section 36-509.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1981–2017 · leading case:
State v. Delgado, 848 P.2d 337 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Delgado, 848 P.2d 337 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 5× “section 13-3993 to have an additional expert witness appointed.”
State v. Druke, 693 P.2d 969 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “and A.R.S. § 13-3993. We accept jurisdiction because the question presented is a matter of first impression in this state and is of statewide importance, and because the petitioner has no adequate remedy by appeal.”
State v. Vickers, 633 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 2× “” See A.R.S. § 13-3993(C). We believe that a privileged relationship did not exist between defendant and Spillman.”
State v. Williams, 742 P.2d 1352 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 6× “At the competency hearing, the state moved, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3993(B), that the defendant’s expert witness be precluded from testifying on the issue of insanity because defendant had refused to cooperate with the state’s psychiatrist.”
State v. Tallabas, 746 P.2d 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 6× “Arizona embodies this requirement in A.R.S. § 13-3993, which permits the state to counter the insanity defense by nominating the same number of medical doctors or licensed psychologists as will testify on behalf of the defendant.”
State v. Chaney, 686 P.2d 1265 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-3993(A). Finally, the two rule 11 doctors examined Chaney by order of the court to determine his competence to stand trial.”
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen, 378 P.3d 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “§ 13-3993 (2010) allows the defendant to be examined, and removes any physician-patient privilege 2 as to any communication made “as it relates to the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged crime.” A.R.S.”
Phillips v. Araneta, 93 P.3d 480 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, A.R.S. § 13-3993 (2001), which pertains to examinations of defendants who have invoked an insanity defense, directs a court to preclude the defendant from offering expert testimony of his mental state if he refuses to be examined by the state’s expert.”
State v. Thornton, 929 P.2d 676 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-3993(C). He acknowledges that the state could use relevant evidence about his mental health that it gained through its own investigation.”
Austin v. Alfred, 788 P.2d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “This construction is reinforced by the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-3993: If any mental disability defense is raised, both the state and the defendant shall receive prior to the trial complete copies of any report by a medical doctor or ' licensed psychologist who examines the…”
State v. Hegyi, 396 P.3d 1095 (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-4508(B) (defendant’s statements obtained during an examination are not admissible “unless the defendant presents evidence that is intended to rebut the presumption of sanity”); A.R.S. § 13-3993(D) (requiring disclosure of a mental health expert’s complete report “[i]f any…”
State of Arizona v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen (Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 2× “HEGYI (RASMUSSEN) Opinion of the Court rebut the presumption of sanity”); A.R.S. § 13-3993(D) (requiring disclosure of a mental health expert’s complete report “[i]f any mental disability defense is raised”).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3993(A) — 3 cases
State v. Chaney, 686 P.2d 1265 (Ariz. 1984).
“See A.R.S. § 13-3993(A). Finally, the two rule 11 doctors examined Chaney by order of the court to determine his competence to stand trial.”
State v. Tallabas, 746 P.2d 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Arizona embodies this requirement in A.R.S. § 13-3993, which permits the state to counter the insanity defense by nominating the same number of medical doctors or licensed psychologists as will testify on behalf of the defendant.”
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen, 378 P.3d 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 13-3993 (2010) allows the defendant to be examined, and removes any physician-patient privilege 2 as to any communication made “as it relates to the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged crime.” A.R.S.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3993(B) — 2 cases
State v. Williams, 742 P.2d 1352 (Ariz. 1987).
“At the competency hearing, the state moved, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3993(B), that the defendant’s expert witness be precluded from testifying on the issue of insanity because defendant had refused to cooperate with the state’s psychiatrist.”
State v. Tallabas, 746 P.2d 491 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Arizona embodies this requirement in A.R.S. § 13-3993, which permits the state to counter the insanity defense by nominating the same number of medical doctors or licensed psychologists as will testify on behalf of the defendant.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3993(C) — 2 cases
State v. Vickers, 633 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1981).
“” See A.R.S. § 13-3993(C). We believe that a privileged relationship did not exist between defendant and Spillman.”
State v. Thornton, 929 P.2d 676 (Ariz. 1996).
“See A.R.S. § 13-3993(C). He acknowledges that the state could use relevant evidence about his mental health that it gained through its own investigation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3993(D) — 4 cases
State v. Hegyi, 396 P.3d 1095 (Ariz. 2017).
“§ 13-4508(B) (defendant’s statements obtained during an examination are not admissible “unless the defendant presents evidence that is intended to rebut the presumption of sanity”); A.R.S. § 13-3993(D) (requiring disclosure of a mental health expert’s complete report “[i]f any…”
Austin v. Alfred, 788 P.2d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“This construction is reinforced by the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-3993: If any mental disability defense is raised, both the state and the defendant shall receive prior to the trial complete copies of any report by a medical doctor or ' licensed psychologist who examines the…”
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen, 378 P.3d 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 13-3993 (2010) allows the defendant to be examined, and removes any physician-patient privilege 2 as to any communication made “as it relates to the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged crime.” A.R.S.”
State of Arizona v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen (Ariz. 2017).
“HEGYI (RASMUSSEN) Opinion of the Court rebut the presumption of sanity”); A.R.S. § 13-3993(D) (requiring disclosure of a mental health expert’s complete report “[i]f any mental disability defense is raised”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.