v.
ERNESTO SUMAJESTAD, Defendant.
High Court of
Trial Division
CR No. 41-00
September 8, 2000[4ASR3d233]
[1] Under A.S.C.A. § 46.1303, the court may order a
psychiatric evaluation on the motion of either party or sua sponte.
[2] The scope of the court-ordered mental examination
in a criminal case, unless otherwise specified, is to determine whether (1)
defendant is competent to stand trial and (2) whether he was sane at the time
of the criminal act charged.
[3] All persons are presumed to be sane or mentally competent unless a preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise.
[4] Defendant’s action in
turning himself in to police with a cache of controlled substances in his
possession was not conduct in and of itself so bizarre as to constitute a
showing sufficient to require the court to order a psychiatric evaluation.
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice,
TUAOLO, Associate Judge, and LOGOAI, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiff, John R. Cassell,
Assistant Attorney General
For Defendant, Bentley C. Adams III, Assistant
Public
Defender
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
MENTAL EXAMINATION
Counsel for defendant seeks
an order to submit his client to a psychiatric evaluation principally on
counsel’s contention that defendant’s action in turning himself into the
police with a cache of controlled substances was conduct so “bizarre” to
warrant a mental examination. This
motion is being belatedly made after the defendant had waived his right to a
preliminary examination before the District Court and entered a plea of not
guilty, subsequent to waiving the reading of the information and rights, and
upon arraignment before this court.
[1-3] Under A.S.C.A. § 46.1303,
the court may order a psychiatric evaluation on the motion of either party or sua
sponte. The scope of the
examination, unless otherwise specified, is to determine whether (1) defendant
is competent to stand trial and (2) whether he was sane at the time of the
criminal act charged. A.S.C.A. §
46.1304(b) (1) and (2). All persons are
presumed to be sane or mentally competent, see A.S.C.A. § 46.1306,
unless a preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise. Am. Samoa
Gov’t v. Taylor, 16 A.S.R.2d 44, 46 (Trial Div. 1990).
[4] We find the showing
insufficient to order an evaluation. An
attack of conscience, for instance, is hardly grounds to believe one is
incompetent to stand trial. By turning
himself in, the defendant obviously appreciated the wrongfulness of his
conduct. Second, by doing so, he
conformed his [4ASR3d234] he law in
probably the most drastic fashion possible.
The motion is denied.
It is so ordered.
**********