insanity defense in Oklahoma

2001In Hooks v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, ¶ 11 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1277-78 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), we held that the trial court properly exeluded the proffered testimony of Dr. Murphy, a elinical psychologist, that "it was his opinion that Hooks did not act with malice aforethought when he killed the victim," and that "Hooks had been in a delusional state and had acted in the heat of passion." We noted, the doctor's testimony "significantly omitted an assessment of Hooks' sanity, i.e., whether, at the time of the murder, he had the mental capacity to disti

2001In Hooks v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, ¶ 11 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1277-78 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), we held that the trial court properly exeluded the proffered testimony of Dr. Murphy, a elinical psychologist, that "it was his opinion that Hooks did not act with malice aforethought when he killed the victim," and that "Hooks had been in a delusional state and had acted in the heat of passion." We noted, the doctor's testimony "significantly omitted an assessment of Hooks' sanity, i.e., whether, at the time of the murder, he had the mental capacity to disti

1997Rogers did not include this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel anywhere in his Application for Post-Conviction Relief, and the allegation contained in his brief is not properly before us. [19] Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of his confession. [20] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(b)(1). [21] Walker, 933 P.2d at 333 sets forth the three tiered procedural scheme under which we review these claims.

1997This Court directed the State to respond to Proposition V(2)(b) of the original Application. [4] Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327 (Okl.Cr.1997). [5] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(C). [6] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(a). [7] Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 569 (Okl.Cr. 1995); Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383, 385 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ 115 S.Ct. 1318 , 131 L.Ed.2d 199 (1994). [8] Moore v. State, 889 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 215 , 133 L.Ed.2d 146 (1995); Fowler v. Oklahoma, 873 P.2d 1053, 1056 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1061 , 115 S.Ct. 673 , 130

1995In Standridge v. State, 701 P.2d 761 (Okl.Cr.1985) this Court left open the question whether the Ake holding extended to assistance other than a psychiatric expert.

1995In Standridge v. State, 701 P.2d 761 (Okl.Cr. 1985) this Court left open the question whether the Ake holding extended to assistance other than a psychiatric expert.

1990In Jones we said that “[ijnvoluntary intoxication is a complete defense where the defendant is so intoxicated that he is unable to distinguish between right and wrong, the same standard as applied in an insanity defense.” Id. at 1258 .

1984In Jones v. State, supra, we said: “[ijnvoluntary intoxication is a complete defense where the defendant is so intoxicated that he is unable to distinguish between right and wrong, the same standard as applied in an insanity defense.” Id. at 1258 .

2006Id.

2006Id.

2004Indeed, the committee comments to Rule 1.2 note "[t]he client has ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law...." Nelson, 2001 OK CR 4, ¶ 29 , 21 P.3d at 60 ; see also, Alvord v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984) ("In light of Alvord's refusal to assert the insanity defense, although earnestly counseled by his defense attorney to do so, we conclude that Meyers rendered competent assistance...

2004Indeed, the committee comments to Rule 1.2 note "[t]he client has ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law...." Nelson, 2001 OK CR 4, ¶ 29 , 21 P.3d at 60 ; see also, Alvord v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 956 , 105 S.Ct. 355 , 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984) ("In light of Alvord's refusal to assert the insanity defense, although earnestly counseled by his defense attorney to do so, we conclude that Meyers rendered competent assistance...

2004Whether the personality trait is psychopathic tendencies or, as here, chronic alcohol and drug abuse, the defense may present it in combination with other factors in hopes of mitigating the offense. [13] Accord State v. Weaver, 2002 S.D. 76 at ¶ 27, 648 N.W.2d 355 ("battered woman's syndrome" and "cycle of violence" are established concepts which have been subjected to peer review). [14] The instruction read: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will hear at this time the testimony of Deb Stanaland as to general characteristics of domestic abuse and its effect.

2002Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 793 , 121 S.Ct. 1910, 1919 , 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001). ¶ 25 In the present case, Appellant initiated a psychiatric evaluation for the purpose of exploring an insanity defense, thus entitling the State to have Appellant examined by its own mental health expert.

2002Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 793 , 121 S.Ct. 1910, 1919 , 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001). ¶ 25 In the present case, Appellant initiated a psychiatric evaluation for the purpose of exploring an insanity defense, thus entitling the State to have Appellant examined by its own mental health expert.

2002Allen v. State, 1997 OK CR 44 , 944 P.2d 934, 936 .

2002Allen v. State, 1997 OK CR 44 , 944 P.2d 934, 936 .

2001In Hooks v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, ¶ 11 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1277-78 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), we held that the trial court properly exeluded the proffered testimony of Dr. Murphy, a elinical psychologist, that "it was his opinion that Hooks did not act with malice aforethought when he killed the victim," and that "Hooks had been in a delusional state and had acted in the heat of passion." We noted, the doctor's testimony "significantly omitted an assessment of Hooks' sanity, i.e., whether, at the time of the murder, he had the mental capacity to disti

2001In Hooks v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, ¶ 11 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1277-78 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), we held that the trial court properly exeluded the proffered testimony of Dr. Murphy, a elinical psychologist, that "it was his opinion that Hooks did not act with malice aforethought when he killed the victim," and that "Hooks had been in a delusional state and had acted in the heat of passion." We noted, the doctor's testimony "significantly omitted an assessment of Hooks' sanity, i.e., whether, at the time of the murder, he had the mental capacity to disti

2001In Hooks v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, ¶ 11 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1277-78 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), we held that the trial court properly exeluded the proffered testimony of Dr. Murphy, a elinical psychologist, that "it was his opinion that Hooks did not act with malice aforethought when he killed the victim," and that "Hooks had been in a delusional state and had acted in the heat of passion." We noted, the doctor's testimony "significantly omitted an assessment of Hooks' sanity, i.e., whether, at the time of the murder, he had the mental capacity to disti

2001In Hooks v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, ¶ 11 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1277-78 , cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100 , 114 S.Ct. 1870 , 128 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), we held that the trial court properly exeluded the proffered testimony of Dr. Murphy, a elinical psychologist, that "it was his opinion that Hooks did not act with malice aforethought when he killed the victim," and that "Hooks had been in a delusional state and had acted in the heat of passion." We noted, the doctor's testimony "significantly omitted an assessment of Hooks' sanity, i.e., whether, at the time of the murder, he had the mental capacity to disti

2001Short *60 v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, ¶ 87 , 980 P.2d 1081, 1107 . ¶ 25 A review of the facts indicates Appellant's best, and most plausible, defense to the crimes charged was insanity.

2001Short *60 v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, ¶ 87 , 980 P.2d 1081, 1107 . ¶ 25 A review of the facts indicates Appellant's best, and most plausible, defense to the crimes charged was insanity.

2001Indeed, the psychologist's reports indicate Appellant had shown *61 an understanding of the nature of the insanity defense. ¶ 34 In State v. Tenace, 121 Ohio App.3d 702 , 700 N.E.2d 899 (1997), an Ohio appellate court analyzed this issue extensively.

2001Indeed, the psychologist's reports indicate Appellant had shown *61 an understanding of the nature of the insanity defense. ¶ 34 In State v. Tenace, 121 Ohio App.3d 702 , 700 N.E.2d 899 (1997), an Ohio appellate court analyzed this issue extensively.

2000Ellis, 1997 OK CR 36, ¶¶ 6, 7 , 941 P.2d 527, 530 .

2000Ellis, 1997 OK CR 36, ¶¶ 6, 7 , 941 P.2d 527, 530 .

1999This assertion is correct, as this Court held in Traywicks v. State, 1996 OK CR 54 , 927 P.2d 1062, 1065 , "while the defendant may be compelled to answer questions about his mental health, a constitutional violation may occur if the defendant is compelled to reveal details of the crime itself to the State's mental health expert." In Traywicks , this Court held that when a defendant raises an insanity defense he waives his Fifth Amendment right to silence regarding mental health issues but he does not waive his right to remain silent regarding the details of the crime.

1999This assertion is correct, as this Court held in Traywicks v. State, 1996 OK CR 54 , 927 P.2d 1062, 1065 , "while the defendant may be compelled to answer questions about his mental health, a constitutional violation may occur if the defendant is compelled to reveal details of the crime itself to the State's mental health expert." In Traywicks , this Court held that when a defendant raises an insanity defense he waives his Fifth Amendment right to silence regarding mental health issues but he does not waive his right to remain silent regarding the details of the crime.

1999The court partly relied on the holding in City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 227 , 231 P.2d 26 (1951), which held that when a physician is used as an agent of the attorney and examines the client for the sole purpose of aiding the attorney and not for the purpose of treating the client, any information obtained by the physician is privileged.

1999The court partly relied on the holding in City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 227 , 231 P.2d 26 (1951), which held that when a physician is used as an agent of the attorney and examines the client for the sole purpose of aiding the attorney and not for the purpose of treating the client, any information obtained by the physician is privileged.

1997This Court directed the State to respond to Proposition V(2)(b) of the original Application. [4] Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327 (Okl.Cr.1997). [5] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(C). [6] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(a). [7] Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 569 (Okl.Cr. 1995); Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383, 385 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ 115 S.Ct. 1318 , 131 L.Ed.2d 199 (1994). [8] Moore v. State, 889 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 215 , 133 L.Ed.2d 146 (1995); Fowler v. Oklahoma, 873 P.2d 1053, 1056 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1061 , 115 S.Ct. 673 , 130

1997A Petition for Rehearing was filed with this Court and while under consideration, this Court decided Johnson v. State, 841 P.2d 595 (Okl.Cr.1992).

1997A Petition for Rehearing was filed with this Court and while under consideration, this Court decided Johnson v. State, 841 P.2d 595 (Okl.Cr.1992).

1997This Court directed the State to respond to Proposition V(2)(b) of the original Application. [4] Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327 (Okl.Cr.1997). [5] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(C). [6] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(a). [7] Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 569 (Okl.Cr. 1995); Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383, 385 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ 115 S.Ct. 1318 , 131 L.Ed.2d 199 (1994). [8] Moore v. State, 889 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 215 , 133 L.Ed.2d 146 (1995); Fowler v. Oklahoma, 873 P.2d 1053, 1056 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1061 , 115 S.Ct. 673 , 130

1997This Court directed the State to respond to Proposition V(2)(b) of the original Application. [4] Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327 (Okl.Cr.1997). [5] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(C). [6] 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1089(D)(4)(a). [7] Fowler v. State, 896 P.2d 566, 569 (Okl.Cr. 1995); Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383, 385 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ 115 S.Ct. 1318 , 131 L.Ed.2d 199 (1994). [8] Moore v. State, 889 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 215 , 133 L.Ed.2d 146 (1995); Fowler v. Oklahoma, 873 P.2d 1053, 1056 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1061 , 115 S.Ct. 673 , 130