Your Shrink Or Mine?

No extra letters. 

State v. Sharrow, 2017 VT 25

By Eric Fanning

This case is relatively simple, folks, so I’ll keep this one short and sweet. 

Defendant Christopher Sharrow was charged with second degree murder in July 2013. While he was awaiting trial, his lawyer requested a competency hearing. A quick digression for the readers out there with no criminal law background: a criminal defendant cannot stand trial if he or she is found mentally incompetent. The two-prong analysis for incompetence is: (1) can the defendant understand the nature of the charges against him or her; and (2) is the defendant capable of consulting with his or her attorney? Don’t confuse this with insanity, which is a defense to a crime. A finding of incompetency merely delays the trial until the defendant regains competence; it doesn’t mean the defendant is not guilty.

Anyway, the court ordered an evaluation pursuant to this law, which we’ll get to in a second. The Department of Mental Health had an expert conduct a competency evaluation, but Sharrow’s lawyer wasn’t present when the evaluation was done, and so he moved for a reevaluation. The court ordered another evaluation and the Department of Mental Health selected another expert. This time, the expert requested a neuropsychological examination, but the Department declined to provide funding for that examination. The second doctor bailed and suggested they find someone else, because they believed that a neuropsychological examination was crucial for completing their evaluation. The third court-appointed expert concluded the Sharrow was not competent to stand trial for the alleged offense.

After getting those results, the State moved to have its own expert conduct a competency evaluation and that they be given access to Sharrow in order to do it. The court granted the State’s motion, and now Sharrow asks SCOV to review the criminal court’s decision.

This is an interlocutory appeal, which means SCOV reviews the judge’s ruling before a verdict or final judgment has been rendered. These kinds of appeals are only allowed in certain situations- mainly for those issues that are central to the outcome of the case (like, say, whether a criminal defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial). The issue before the SCOV is whether this statute gives the court the power to order a defendant to submit to a competency evaluation by an expert chosen by the prosecution.

SCOV’s analysis begins and ends with the plain language of the statute, which reads:

Any court before which a criminal prosecution is pending may order the Department of Mental Health to have the defendant examined by a psychiatrist at any time before, during or after trial, and before final judgment… when the Court believes that there is doubt as to the defendant's mental competency to be tried for the alleged offense.

SCOV reads the law and concludes, by its plain language that it merely gives the court the authority to order the Department of Mental Health to have a defendant examined, which isn’t the same as having the authority to order the defendant to submit to an evaluation by the prosecution’s expert. SCOV says the difference is that the statute contemplates only that the Department of Mental Health will select the mental health expert, and goes no further than that.

The State argues that denying it the ability to conduct its own competency evaluation runs counter to the Legislature’s intent that both sides have an opportunity to challenge each other’s evidence. SCOV says “nice try,” but you can still call witnesses and introduce other relevant evidence.

SCOV also holds that the statute is consistent with the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure and constitutional principles of due process, but, in any event, its language is clear, and so it must be enforced by those terms. So the State doesn’t get their evaluation, and back to court they go to decide whether Sharrow can stand trial.