Criminal – Murder – Mental Health Expert

A defendant who shot his neighbors multiple times with an “AK 47 styled” rifle as they drove past defendant’s home, killing the wife and permanently disabling the husband, and then engaged in an hours-long standoff with law enforcement, has his convictions of first-degree murder and related crimes affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Defendant had been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility after complaining that the neighbor had been attempting to kill him with “gamma rays.” Defendant was diagnosed as suffering from acute paranoid psychosis probably secondary to methamphetamine abuse. His attending physician determined defendant did not suffer from an “underlying psychosis.” He was released from the facility after four days.

Pursuant to Va. Code §19.2-168.1(A), the trial court appointed a mental health expert to evaluate defendant’s claim of insanity at the time of the offenses. It also appointed a clinical psychologist to evaluate defendant’s competency to stand trial pursuant to Code § 19.2-169.1.

There was conflicting evidence on defendant’s competency to stand trial, including evidence that he understand procedures at the jail and had told others he was acting as he did to strengthen his claim of insanity.

We conclude the record contains credible expert and lay evidence sufficient to support the factual determination by the trial court that defendant was competent to stand trial. In reaching that conclusion, the trial court found that defendant understood the nature of the proceedings against him, that he had substantial capacity to meaningfully participate in his defense should he have chosen to do so, and that he was capable of understanding the consequences of his failure to cooperate with the commonwealth’s mental health expert’s efforts to evaluate him. We find the trial court was not plainly wrong in finding defendant competent to stand trial.

Nor did the trial court err in barring defendant from presenting expert mental health evidence on the issue of his sanity at the time of the offenses. The trial court found that defendant was competent to stand trial and had the present capacity to comprehend and appreciate the severity of the charges against him, to communicate with and give relevant case information to his attorneys, and to understand the adversarial nature of the criminal proceedings. The trial court was not plainly wrong in finding that any mental illness asserted by defendant to exist did not preclude him from cooperating with the commonwealth’s mental health expert to evaluate him, and understanding the consequences of his failure to do so.

We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion when it banned defendant from presenting at trial his expert mental health evidence related to his sanity at the time of the offenses.

Convictions affirmed.

Grattan v. Commonwealth (Felton, J.) No. 1614-07-3, Nov. 25, 2008; Rockingham County Cir.Ct. (McGrath) Jonathan Shapiro for appellant; Jennifer C. Willamson, AAG, for appellee. VLW 008-7-497(UP), 10 pp.