Cate v. Alabama
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Petitioner Tonya Cate sought a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its order requiring her to submit for a mental examination. She was indicted for capital murder and did not use the not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-defect defense. At the onset, a mitigation expert was concerned Petitioner had not been subjected to the exam to determine her competency to stand trial. Petitioner's attorney filed a motion for a continuance for his client to be examined, but did not specify that the exam was only to determine competence. The State filed a motion to have Petitioner examined for both current mental condition and competency to stand trial. Petitioner claims to have not been served with a copy of the trial court's order that granted the State's motion, and objected. In her motion to avoid the exam, Petitioner asked in the alternative that if the exam took place, her attorney be present to advise her of her constitutional rights. Before the court ruled on the motion, Petitioner withdrew her original motion, citing the mitigation expert's concerns had been allayed. The court entered its order requiring Petitioner to submit to the examination for then-current mental state and at the time of the alleged crime. Petitioner argued that after withdrawing her own motion for an examination, she could not be compelled to submit for examination. Because Petitioner did not use the mental-defect defense, the Supreme Court concluded that she could not be compelled to submit to the examination. Accordingly the Court granted the petition and issued the writ.
Download PDF
Rel: 06/21/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111240 Ex p a r t e Tonya G. Cate PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ( I n r e : Tonya G. Cate v. S t a t e o f Alabama) (Etowah C i r c u i t Court, PARKER, CC-2005-000211) Justice. Tonya G. C a t e p e t i t i o n s t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus directing t h e Etowah Circuit Court ("the t r i a l court") t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r r e q u i r i n g C a t e t o s u b m i t t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o 1111240 determine offense her she mental condition i s alleged p e t i t i o n and i s s u e t h e I. Cate has to at have the time of committed. the We capital grant writ. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y been indicted for capital murder; i t is u n d i s p u t e d t h a t C a t e has n o t e n t e r e d a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y reason of mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t . b e g i n on O c t o b e r 24, 2011. Her trial 2011, Cate's requesting, mental competency t o s t a n d t r i a l . attorney f i l e d among o t h e r t h i n g s , examination. s p e c i f y t h a t C a t e was determine a motion her set to September to continue the Cate's Cate's examination to On t h a t C a t e be In the motion, by expressed concern t h a t Cate had not been s u b j e c t e d t o a m e n t a l her was While p r e p a r i n g f o r t r i a l , a t t o r n e y c o n s u l t e d a m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t , who determine the 29, trial, subjected to a a t t o r n e y d i d not r e q u e s t i n g a mental examination only to competency to stand trial. requested a continuance to allow a mental c o n d u c t e d and s t a t e d i n t h e Cate's attorney examination to motion: " I t i s unknown a t t h i s t i m e i f t h e r e may be underlying psychological problems, conduct, d i s o r d e r s , d e p r e s s i o n o r any o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f mental illness. The mitigation specialist has advised t h a t i n a [ ] u s u a l case, i t takes a year to c o m p l e t e t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n b u t t h a t she w o u l d be 2 be 1111240 w i l l i n g to expedite her investigation i f given u n t i l M a r c h 2012. O t h e r w i s e , t h e m i t i g a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t h a s a d v i s e d t h a t she w o u l d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n s a i d i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t s a i d m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n w o u l d be h e l p f u l t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t , i f any, o f any i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t w o u l d n e e d t o be made i n r e g a r d s t o f a m i l y psychological history." On O c t o b e r requiring Cate 4, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l to submit to c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r inpatient d e t e r m i n e h e r competency t o s t a n d t r i a l mental condition a t the time examinations to and t o determine h e r of the alleged offense. On November 8, 2 0 1 1 , C a t e ' s a t t o r n e y f i l e d a m o t i o n t o amend t h e trial c o u r t ' s O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r , a r g u i n g t h a t u n d e r R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . 1 P., 1 the t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P, s t a t e s : "(a) M o t i o n s . "(1) C o m p e t e n c y t o S t a n d T r i a l . When a p e r s o n charged w i t h a crime i s before a c i r c u i t court, the defendant, the defendant's a t t o r n e y , or the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y may p e t i t i o n f o r , o r t h e c o u r t on i t s own m o t i o n may o r d e r , an e x a m i n a t i o n t o a s s i s t i n t h e determination of the defendant's present mental c o n d i t i o n and competency t o s t a n d t r i a l . "(2) M e n t a l C o n d i t i o n a t Time o f O f f e n s e . I f t h e d e f e n d a n t has t i m e l y r a i s e d a d e f e n s e o f 'not g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ' e i t h e r b y t h e e n t r y o f a p l e a o r by f i l i n g a p r e - t r i a l motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 15, t h e c o u r t on i t s own m o t i o n may order, or the defendant, the defendant's attorney, or t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y may move f o r an e x a m i n a t i o n 3 1111240 the discretion determine her t o o r d e r Cate mental t o submit condition at the t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o time of the alleged o f f e n s e b e c a u s e C a t e h a d n o t " r a i s e d a d e f e n s e o f 'not by reason of mental plea [Ala. the o r by filing guilty d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ' e i t h e r by e n t r y o f a a pre-trial R. C r i m . P . ] . " motion Rule 11.2(a)(2). pursuant to Rule On December 21, t r i a l c o u r t amended i t s O c t o b e r 4, 2011, o r d e r as 15, 2011, follows: " T h i s m a t t e r h a v i n g come b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on t h e m o t i o n o f [ C a t e ] , and t h e C o u r t h a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e f i l e and n o t e d t h a t t h e r e has b e e n no d e f e n s e o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t , and f u r t h e r t h a t t h e r e has b e e n no p r e - t r i a l motion p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 5 [ , A l a . R. C r i m . P.,] r e q u e s t i n g a mental e v a l u a t i o n f o r mental c o n d i t i o n at the time of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e ; i t i s hereby ordered, a d j u d g e d and d e c r e e d t h a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n t o be p e r f o r m e d on [ C a t e ] be l i m i t e d t o an o u t p a t i e n t e v a l u a t i o n of her p r e s e n t mental condition and competency t o s t a n d t r i a l . " On January reconsider the 3, trial 2012, the State c o u r t ' s December r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . also filed a motion filed 21, a 2011, motion to order and On t h e same day, t h e S t a t e f o r examinations to determine c u r r e n t m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n and c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d t r i a l determine her mental condition at the time of the Cate's and t o alleged i n t o the defendant's mental c o n d i t i o n a t the time of the offense." 4 1111240 offense. day, Cate c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r i a l entered an order granting c o u r t , a l s o on t h e same the State's motion for e x a m i n a t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e Cate's competency t o s t a n d t r i a l and to determine her mental c o n d i t i o n a t the time of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e ; a copy Cate's with of this petition. o r d e r i s n o t , however, Cate also t h e o r d e r and t h a t file. states that i t was n e v e r attached to she was n o t s e r v e d included i n the court R a t h e r , C a t e c l a i m s t o have d i s c o v e r e d t h e o r d e r when h e r a t t o r n e y was c o n t a c t e d b y t h e h o s p i t a l t h a t was a l l e g e d l y o r d e r e d t o examine C a t e . On January 12, 2012, C a t e ' s attorney f i l e d a motion o b j e c t i n g t o t h e o r d e r C a t e a l l e g e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d on January 3, 2012, requiring Cate to submit to a mental examination t o determine her mental s t a t e a t the time of the alleged offense. Cate also requested a stay of the alleged o r d e r a n d a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . alternative, attorney Fifth, The that, i f such an Cate a l s o argued, examination i n the occurred, her be a l l o w e d t o be p r e s e n t t o a d v i s e h e r as t o h e r S i x t h , E i g h t h , a n d F o u r t e e n t h Amendment trial court s e t the matter for a rights. hearing c o n d u c t e d on J a n u a r y 23, 2012. A t t h e h e a r i n g , C a t e 5 t o be withdrew 1111240 her motion requesting a mental examination to determine competency t o s t a n d t r i a l . Cate c l a i m e d t h a t her her mitigation e x p e r t h a d met w i t h h e r s e v e r a l t i m e s s i n c e h e r September 2 9, 2011, m o t i o n and t h a t t h e m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t no l o n g e r h a d any concern At the Cate to hearing, about Cate's the t r i a l competency court to stand trial. stayed i t s order r e q u i r i n g s u b m i t t o a m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n and r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s s u b m i t b r i e f s on t h e i s s u e ; b o t h p a r t i e s c o m p l i e d . On support February, 1, 2012, of i t s motion the State f o r mental filed i t s brief examinations to in determine b o t h Cate's competency t o s t a n d t r i a l and h e r m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n at The S t a t e a r g u e d t h a t i t was the time of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . entitled to have Cate submitted to the requested e x a m i n a t i o n s p u r s u a n t t o § 1 5 - 1 6 - 2 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, which states: "(a) Whenever i t s h a l l be made known t o t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e o f a c o u r t by w h i c h an i n d i c t m e n t has b e e n r e t u r n e d a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t f o r a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e , t h a t t h e r e i s reasonable ground t o b e l i e v e t h a t s u c h d e f e n d a n t may p r e s e n t l y l a c k t h e c a p a c i t y to proceed or continue to t r i a l , as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 22-52-30, o r w h e n e v e r s a i d j u d g e r e c e i v e s n o t i c e t h a t the defense of s a i d defendant may p r o c e e d on t h e b a s i s o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t as a d e f e n s e t o c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; i t s h a l l be the duty of the p r e s i d i n g judge to f o r t h w i t h order t h a t s u c h d e f e n d a n t be c o m m i t t e d t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for 6 1111240 examination by one or more mental health p r o f e s s i o n a l s a p p o i n t e d by the Commissioner o f the D e p a r t m e n t o f M e n t a l H e a l t h and M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n . The c o m m i s s i o n e r s h a l l p l a c e t h e d e f e n d a n t u n d e r t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a n d e x a m i n a t i o n o f one o r more m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s , e a c h o f whom i s e i t h e r a l i c e n s e d p s y c h o l o g i s t h o l d i n g a P s y . D. o r Ph.D d e g r e e o r a l i c e n s e d p h y s i c i a n who s p e c i a l i z e s i n psychiatry. The assigned mental health p r o f e s s i o n a l ( s ) s h a l l examine t h e defendant w i t h r e s p e c t t o d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f any m e n t a l disease or d e f e c t which, i f determined t o be p r e s e n t , would a f f e c t the c a p a c i t y o f the defendant to proceed or continue t o t r i a l or which would a f f e c t the defendant's c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y at the time o f the commission o f the c r i m e . " The State also asserted the f o l l o w i n g : " C o u n s e l f o r [ C a t e ] c l e a r l y made known t o t h e C o u r t i n h i s s u b m i s s i o n o f S e p t e m b e r 29, 2 0 1 1 , t h a t t h e r e was r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d t o q u e s t i o n [ C a t e ' s ] c a p a c i t y t o p r o c e e d t o t r i a l , and n o t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y i n h i s m o t i o n t h a t t h e r e was a q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g 'underlying psychological problems, conduct, d i s o r d e r s , d e p r e s s i o n o r any o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f m e n t a l i l l n e s s . ' Once t h e s e i s s u e s have b e e n r a i s e d , t h e A l a b a m a Code s e c t i o n n o t e d above r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e C o u r t o r d e r an i n p a t i e n t e v a l u a t i o n . C o u n s e l f o r [ C a t e ] c a n n o t s i m p l y w i t h d r a w t h e r e q u e s t once t h a t i s s u e i s p l a c e d b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , as t o do s o may result i n reversible error." (Emphasis Cate pursuant i n original.) responded to Rule on February 1 1 . 2 ( a ) , A l a . R. 13, 2012, Crim. P., arguing that, she c a n n o t be c o m p e l l e d t o s u b m i t t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e h e r m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e because she had 7 1111240 n o t p l e a d e d " o r r a i s e d t h e d e f e n s e o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t as r e q u i r e d u n d e r R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ... i n o r d e r t o a u t h o r i z e a S t a t e m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n as t o t h e c o n d i t i o n and c o m p e t e n c y o f [ C a t e ] a t t h e t i m e o f t h e offense." Further, Cate r e g a r d i n g § 15-16-22(a), addressed the A l a . Code 1975, as State's mental alleged argument follows: " [ T ] h e p r o v i s i o n s o f § 15-16-22, A l a . Code ( 1 9 7 5 ) [ , ] have no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . [ C a t e ] has n o t p l e a d [ e d ] n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e or d e f e c t . A t t h e h e a r i n g on J a n u a r y 23, 2012, counsel f o r [ C a t e ] s t a t e d t h a t [ C a t e ] d i d not i n t e n d t o r a i s e t h e d e f e n s e o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t . T h i s C o u r t has not r e c e i v e d n o t i c e f r o m [ C a t e ] i n any f o r m o r f a s h i o n t h a t [ C a t e ] i n t e n d s t o r a i s e o r p r o c e e d on t h e d e f e n s e o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t as t o c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . [ C a t e ] has a d v i s e d t h e C o u r t t h a t h e r m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t w i l l be looking into [Cate's] childhood, upbringing, e d u c a t i o n , r e l a t i o n s h i p s , f r i e n d s h i p s , f o r m a t i v e and t r a u m a t i c e x p e r i e n c e s , and p e r s o n a l p s y c h o l o g y and present f e e l i n g s f o r purposes of m i t i g a t i o n i n a c a p i t a l m u r d e r c a s e . However, [ C a t e ] and [ C a t e ' s ] counsel intend t o do these investigations for p u r p o s e s o f t h e m i t i g a t i o n s t a g e , i f n e c e s s a r y , and not f o r purposes of a defense of mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t at the time of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . " On February 23, 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an order r e q u i r i n g Cate t o submit t o examinations t o determine both her c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d t r i a l and h e r m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . 8 1111240 On M a r c h mandamus w i t h a response. 23, 2012, C a t e filed a petition f o r a writ of the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals; the State On J u n e 15, 2012, t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l filed Appeals d e n i e d C a t e ' s mandamus p e t i t i o n b y an o r d e r o f t h a t c o u r t , Ex parte Cate (No. CR-11-0949, June (Ala. C r i m . App. 2012) ( t a b l e ) , 15, 2 0 1 2 ) , So. 3d stating i n pertinent part: " C a t e a s s e r t s t h a t b e c a u s e she w i t h d r e w h e r motion f o r a mental e v a l u a t i o n , [ t h e t r i a l court] mental evaluation. h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r a menta 1975, Section 15-16-22, A l a . Code 1975, s p e c i f i c a l l y states that i t i s the duty of the court t o order a mental evaluation when the court is given 'reasonable grounds' t o b e l i e v e t h a t a defendant l a c k s t h e c a p a c i t y t o p r o c e e d a t t r i a l o r when t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s r a i s e d t h e d e f e n s e o f 'not g u i l t y b y r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t . ' See Ex p a r t e L a F l o r e , 445 So. 2d 932 ( A l a . 1983) ( ' I t i s e q u a l l y LaFlore So. 2d 932 ( A l a . 1983) ( ' I t i s e q u a l l y u i iaat x n v i e w o f P a t e u i n view of Pate [y . R o b i n s o n , 383 UU.S. ooo S clear th [v R o b i n s o n 375 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ] , P i e r c e v. S t a t e , 52 A l a . App. 422, 293 So. 2d 483 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , c e r t . q u a s h e d , 292 A l a . 745, 293 So. 2d 489 [ ( 1 9 7 4 ) ] ; a n d E d g e r s o n v . S t a t e , 53 A l a . App. 5 8 1 , 302 So. 2d 556 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , a t r i a l c o u r t h a s an i n d e p e n d e n t d u t y t o i n q u i r e i n t o an a c c u s e d ' s s t a t e o f m i n d when t h e r e a r e r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o doubt t h e accused's competency t o s t a n d t r i a l . ' (Emphasis added.)). Section 15-16-22, A l a . Code 1975, f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e e x a m i n a t i o n may i n c l u d e an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l competency t o p r o c e e d a t t r i a l and h i s / h e r mental s t a t e a t the time of the offense." On June 26, 2012, C a t e p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court mandamus. II. S t a n d a r d o f Review 9 f o r a w r i t of 1111240 "Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t t h a t w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e order sought; 2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . Ex p a r t e AmSouth Bank, N.A., 589 So. 2d 715 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; Ex p a r t e Day, 584 So. 2d 493 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Ex p a r t e U n i t e d Serv. (Ala. Stations, I n c . , 628 So. 2d 5 0 1 , 503 1993). III. Analysis R e l y i n g upon R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) , s e t f o r t h a b o v e , C a t e argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o m p e l l i n g h e r to s u b m i t t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e h e r m e n t a l at t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e because she d i d n o t e n t e r a plea Cate o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l argues discretion because, that i t was t o compel Cate defendant's within h e r t o submit argues, mental not an disease or defect. the trial t o such examination condition condition an e x a m i n a t i o n to a t the time offense i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y i f the defendant court's of determine the first a alleged r a i s e s "a d e f e n s e o f 'not g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ' e i t h e r by t h e e n t r y o f a p l e a o r by f i l i n g p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 15." Rule 11.2(a)(2). 10 a pre-trial motion 1111240 The above, trial State r e l i e s i n support heavily upon § 1 5 - 1 6 - 2 2 ( a ) , of i t s assertion court's discretion t o compel that set forth i t was w i t h i n t h e Cate t o submit t o an examination t o determine her mental c o n d i t i o n a t the time o f the o f f e n s e even alleged guilty by r e a s o n though o f mental Cate had not pleaded not disease or defect. The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t " C a t e gave n o t i c e t h a t h e r m i t i g a t i o n 'defense,' i n t h e words o f [§] 1 5 - 1 6 - 2 2 ( a ) w o u l d ' p r o c e e d on t h e b a s i s o f mental disease or defect as a defense to criminal responsibility.'" R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) d i s t i n g u i s h e s an e x a m i n a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e a d e f e n d a n t ' s competency t o s t a n d t r i a l determine a defendant's mental alleged offense. its 2 f r o m an e x a m i n a t i o n t o condition a t the time o f the R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) s t a t e s t h a t " t h e c o u r t on own m o t i o n may o r d e r , o r t h e d e f e n d a n t , the defendant's a t t o r n e y , o r t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y may move f o r an e x a m i n a t i o n into the defendant's mental condition a t the time of the The C o m m i t t e e Comments t o R u l e 11.2 (as Amended E f f e c t i v e October 1, 1996) make t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two examinations c l e a r : "Subsection (b)(1), which i s s i m i l a r t o R u l e 1 2 . 2 ( c ) , F e d . R. C r i m . P., a n d 18 U.S.C. § 4241, makes i t c l e a r t h a t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s competency t o s t a n d t r i a l i s s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t from t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f his s a n i t y a t the time o f the o f f e n s e . " 2 11 1111240 offense" " [ i ] f the defendant has t i m e l y r a i s e d a defense of 'not g u i l t y b y r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ' e i t h e r b y the to e n t r y o f a p l e a or by f i l i n g Rule trial 15." (Emphasis a p r e - t r i a l motion added.) pursuant Under R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , t h e court obtains discretion to order an e x a m i n a t i o n t o determine the defendant's mental c o n d i t i o n a t the time of the alleged offense only after the defendant has raised the d e f e n s e o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t . See Hugh Maddox, A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e § 11.2 a t 11-41 ( 5 t h e d . 2011) examination the time ("As t h e R u l e s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s , [to determine the defendant's mental c o n d i t i o n at of defendant, the alleged at arraignment, offense] filed is a plea reason of mental disease or d e f e c t Section 15-16-22(a) discretion to examination independent 11.2(a). 3 this order a does not defendant triggered when of not g u i l t y a by "). grant to the submit trial to a court mental o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l framework o f R u l e R a t h e r , § 15-16-22(a) e s t a b l i s h e s t h e "duty o f t h e "Any p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s t i t l e r e g u l a t i n g procedure s h a l l a p p l y o n l y i f the p r o c e d u r a l s u b j e c t m a t t e r i s n o t governed by r u l e s o f p r a c t i c e a n d p r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d b y t h e Supreme C o u r t of Alabama." § 15-1-1, A l a . Code 1975. 3 12 1111240 presiding judge to forthwith order" a mental examination, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 11.2, " [ w ] h e n e v e r i t s h a l l be made known t o t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e o f a c o u r t b y w h i c h an i n d i c t m e n t h a s b e e n returned against a defendant f o r a c a p i t a l offense, t h a t t h e r e i s r e a s o n a b l e ground t o b e l i e v e t h a t such d e f e n d a n t may p r e s e n t l y l a c k t h e c a p a c i t y t o p r o c e e d or continue to t r i a l , as d e f i n e d i n Section 22-52-30, o r w h e n e v e r s a i d j u d g e r e c e i v e s n o t i c e t h a t t h e d e f e n s e o f s a i d d e f e n d a n t may p r o c e e d on the b a s i s o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t as a d e f e n s e to c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " Under § 1 5 - 1 6 - 2 2 ( a ) , as u n d e r R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , t h e j u d g e may order the defendant t o submit t o a mental examination t o determine "the defendant's c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t h e time of the commission "receives notice of the crime" that only the defense i f the t r i a l of said defendant court may p r o c e e d on t h e b a s i s o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t as a d e f e n s e to criminal responsibility." upon the t r i a l defendant court The d u t y i m p o s e d b y 1 5 - 1 6 - 2 2 ( a ) to order a mental i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Rule examination of a 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; § 15-16-22(a) does n o t e x p a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n b e y o n d t h e l i m i t s e s t a b l i s h e d by Rule 1 1 . 2 ( a ) . When r e a d t o g e t h e r , R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) a n d § 15-16-22 s t a n d f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a judge p r e s i d i n g over a c a p i t a l case has a d u t y t o o r d e r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o s u b m i t t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o 13 1111240 determine the d e f e n d a n t ' s competency t o s t a n d t r i a l when t h e j u d g e has r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t lack the competency presiding over defendant to defendant's a to capital submit mental stand to trial. case an has Likewise, a duty examination condition at the to time to the may judge order the determine the of the alleged o f f e n s e once a d e f e n d a n t e n t e r s a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n of mental disease or defect. See Maddox, A l a b a m a R u l e s of C r i m i n a l Procedure, supra. Under the facts of this case, the trial court had r e a s o n a b l e grounds t o b e l i e v e t h a t Cate l a c k e d the c a p a c i t y t o proceed or to continue t o t r i a l , and, thus, the t r i a l court h a d t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o o r d e r C a t e t o s u b m i t t o an e x a m i n a t i o n to determine her competency t o s t a n d t r i a l . Cate never e n t e r e d a p l e a of not g u i l t y However, b e c a u s e by reason of mental d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e d i s c r e t i o n to o r d e r Cate to submit t o an examination to determine mental c o n d i t i o n at the time of the a l l e g e d her offense. The S t a t e a r g u e s , as m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , t h a t C a t e d i d r a i s e the defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or d e f e c t by i n d i c a t i n g h e r i n t e n t t o "use e v i d e n c e o f h e r m e n t a l 14 1111240 s t a t e a t the time of the crime t o m i t i g a t e her sentence." State argues that, "[o]nce Cate h a d made t h i s The request, the j u d g e was e n t i t l e d t o o r d e r a m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n u n d e r [§] 15- 1[6]-22(a)." The State has f a i l e d to cite any a u t h o r i t y indicating that a c a p i t a l defendant's i n t e n t to introduce evidence a t the sentencing hearing, 4 assuming the defendant has been convicted, t o prove the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances s e t f o r t h i n § 13A-5-51, A l a . Code 1975, i s t h e same as e n t e r i n g a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y b y r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t , a n d we c a n f i n d no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h i s c l a i m . The S t a t e does rely upon J o n e s v. S t a t e , 43 So. 3d 1258 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , i n making t h i s a r g u m e n t , b u t J o n e s does n o t s u p p o r t t h e S t a t e ' s argument. S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t , "[u]pon c o n v i c t i o n of a defendant o f a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e , the t r i a l court s h a l l conduct a separate sentence h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l be s e n t e n c e d to l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t p a r o l e or t o death." F u r t h e r , § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t " [ a ] t t h e s e n t e n c e h e a r i n g e v i d e n c e may be p r e s e n t e d as t o any m a t t e r t h a t t h e c o u r t deems r e l e v a n t t o s e n t e n c e a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e any m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o t h e a g g r a v a t i n g a n d m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e f e r r e d t o i n S e c t i o n s 13A-5-49, 13A-5-51 a n d 1 3 A - 5 - 5 2 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . " 4 15 1111240 In Jones, capital court the defendant murder and, was in his appearance following his arrest, reason of insanity, not insanity, and not g u i l t y defendant then appeared charged w i t h four counts before the district "entered p l e a s of not g u i l t y guilty per by se." reason 43 So. of of by temporary 3d a t 1279. The b e f o r e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and, after being a r r a i g n e d i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t , e n t e r e d o n l y a p l e a of not g u i l t y . The d e f e n d a n t " a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h i r t y d a y s t o file any s p e c i a l p l e a s and s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e d a p o s s i b l e p l e a of not g u i l t y by reason "requested a mental the request objection, was e x a m i n a t i o n and premature." the t r i a l trial Court c o u r t had of Id. The the defense Id. Over the State then argued that defendant's c o u r t g r a n t e d the S t a t e ' s request f o r a mental examination of the The of i n s a n i t y . " defendant. Criminal Appeals, r e v i e w i n g whether e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g the mental examination of the defendant, S t a t e ' s motion for a held: " A l t h o u g h R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., a p p l i e s o n l y t o d e f e n d a n t s who a r e ' b e f o r e a c i r c u i t c o u r t , ' R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., does n o t . R a t h e r , R u l e 1 1 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., a p p l i e s ' [ i ] f t h e d e f e n d a n t has t i m e l y r a i s e d a d e f e n s e o f " n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t . " ' B a s e d on t h e [ d e f e n d a n t ' s ] n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f i n s a n i t y and n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f temporary 16 the 1111240 i n s a n i t y pleas i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i t appears t h a t the S t a t e p r o p e r l y requested a mental e x a m i n a t i o n even though the [ d e f e n d a n t ] had n o t y e t entered similar pleas in the circuit court. Also, § 15-16-22, A l a . Code 1975, provides that, i f a circuit court receives notice that a capital defendant 'may p r o c e e d on the b a s i s of mental disease or defect as a defense to criminal responsibility,' i t should order a mental examination. B a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had concerning the [defendant's] pleas i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , the p r e v i o u s p r o c e e d i n g s i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t , and c o u n s e l ' s r e s e r v a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g special pleas, the circuit court could have reasonably c o n c l u d e d t h a t the [defendant] might p r o c e e d on t h e b a s i s o f a p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y by reason of i n s a n i t y . Therefore, i t d i d not e r r i n granting the State's motion for a mental evaluation." 43 So. 3d a t Unlike p l e a of not 1280. the g u i l t y by indicated that the defendant time of the responsibility. Cate's counsel she in Jones, Cate neither reason of mental disease intends to raise alleged offense Rather, at the her or d e f e c t mental c o n d i t i o n as a d e f e n s e t o h e r January entered 23, 2012, nor at criminal hearing, stated: "And t h e o n l y way an e x a m i n a t i o n as t o t h e mental s t a t u s of the defendant at the time of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e can be done i s i f t h e d e f e n s e [ o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ] i s a f f i r m a t i v e l y p l e a d [ e d ] by t h e d e f e n d a n t . We have n o t r a i s e d t h a t i n t h i s c a s e , Y o u r Honor. 17 a 1111240 "Back i n O c t o b e r o f l a s t y e a r The o n l y i s s u e b r o u g h t up, f r a n k l y , i f you remember, we h a d a l o t of i s s u e s r a i s e d , b u t t h e r e was one i s s u e a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t an e v a l u a t i o n h a d n o t b e e n done as t o c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d t r i a l and t h e C o u r t o r d e r e d I t ' s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t ' s what t h e C o u r t o r d e r e d . B u t we d i d n o t r a i s e t h a t she N e v e r have r a i s e d , n o t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t l e v e l and n o t i n t h i s level I n f a c t , we a r e r e p r e s e n t i n g t o t h e C o u r t t h a t we a r e n o t g o i n g t o be r a i s i n g t h a t d e f e n s e . " The q u e s t i o n o f C a t e ' s m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n o r i g i n a t e d when C a t e ' s mitigation expert expressed competency t o s t a n d t r i a l . concern regarding Cate's Cate then r e q u e s t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e so she c o u l d be e x a m i n e d t o d e t e r m i n e h e r c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d trial. mental Cate explicitly condition at stated that the time of she was the not r a i s i n g alleged offense her as a defense to her c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . F u r t h e r , as s e t f o r t h above, opposing brief Cate also i n support stated of i n her brief i t s motion f o r mental the State's examinations determine b o t h Cate's competency t o s t a n d t r i a l and h e r m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n a t the time of the a l l e g e d o f f e n s e t h a t Cate use any e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g h e r m e n t a l of the alleged sentencing offense. this offense hearing should c o n d i t i o n at the only to prove she be c o n v i c t e d of mitigation the at c a s e and does n o t s u p p o r t t h e S t a t e ' s a r g u m e n t . would time her capital B a s e d on t h o s e f a c t s , J o n e s i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e 18 to from 1111240 IV. It guilty Conclusion i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Cate has n o t e n t e r e d a p l e a o f n o t by reason o f mental 11.2(a)(2) nor § discretion t o order disease or defect. 15-16-22(a) that Cate give be N e i t h e r Rule the t r i a l subjected court the to a mental examination t o determine her mental c o n d i t i o n a t the time of the alleged offense. Therefore, the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s o f a r as i t o r d e r e d t h a t C a t e be s u b j e c t e d t o an examination t o determine her mental c o n d i t i o n a t the time of the alleged offense. Cate has demonstrated c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e r e l i e f sought. that she has a A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t Cate's p e t i t i o n and i s s u e t h e w r i t o r d e r i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s F e b r u a r y 23, 2012, o r d e r i n s o f a r as i t o r d e r e d t h a t C a t e be s u b j e c t e d t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e c o n d i t i o n a t the time of the a l l e g e d offense. her mental 5 PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. S t u a r t , B o l i n , Main, Wise, and Bryan, J J . , concur. M u r d o c k a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r i n t h e r e s u l t . Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . C a t e does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n s o f a r as t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t C a t e be s u b j e c t e d t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o determine h e r competency t o s t a n d t r i a l ; t h u s , the p o r t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e q u i r i n g Cate t o s u b m i t t o an e x a m i n a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e h e r c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d t r i a l remains i n e f f e c t . 5 19 1111240 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I "[§] (concurring i n the the question the opinion that 1 5 - 1 6 - 2 2 ( a ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] does n o t g r a n t t h e trial court d i s c r e t i o n examination Rule result). to order independent 11.2(a)[, Ala. (emphasis added). present statement main a defendant to submit to a of R. in the Crim. procedural mental framework P.]." So. 3d of at I b e l i e v e the d i s p o s i t i v e question i n the case i s whether n o t i c e of i n t e n t i o n t o use d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t i n t h e m i t i g a t i o n phase o f a a mental capital-murder t r i a l i s n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o use t h a t m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t "as a d e f e n s e t o c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " read Because I do t h e s t a t u t e as p r o v i d i n g an a f f i r m a t i v e a n s w e r t o question, I concur i n the result. 20 not this
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
