Mississippi Supreme Court Finds Failure to Appoint PTSD Expert Denies Due Process

Evans v. Mississippi, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 31 (Miss. January 31, 2013)

The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the trial court’s refusal of funds for the defendant to hire a post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) expert was an abuse of discretion and denied the defendant his right to a fair trial. In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial.

In April 2007, Dante Lamar Evans, then age 14, was arrested for the murder of his father. In a videotaped police statement, Dante stated that he and his mother had been abused by his father, that his father had threatened to kill his mother on several occasions, that he had witnessed his father holding his mother underwater in the bath tub, and that his father tried to hit his mother with a car. He also stated that his father had lashed out against him, and at one point injured his eye. Dante was hospitalized with depression in 2001 and was diagnosed with PTSD.

In 2006, Dante moved with his mother to North Carolina, but after he began spending time with a gang and using drugs, she sent him to live with his father in Biloxi. In February 2007, Dante moved in with his father in a FEMA trailer, but after several weeks told the school guidance counselor that he had been thinking of killing his father. The counselor then called another counselor and he told them both that his father was beating him. The next morning the counselor called in the school social worker who told Dante that a parent has the right to discipline a child as long as they do not leave bruises. Dante explained that his father did not leave bruises, but did push and punch him in the chest and forbade him from contacting his mother. The social worker suggested Dante write his mother, but when he attempted to do so during class, the letter was confiscated. The school notified Dante’s father and scheduled a meeting with him. The father acknowledged that he was strict with his son but that they had a good relationship. Dante’s mother then called his father during the meeting and the father gave the phone to his son. The next day Dante came to school with a bruise next to his eye. Dante said his father had pushed him against the trailer. The Department of Social Services then investigated but found no reason to intervene. A few weeks later, Dante’s father was found dead from a gunshot wound. Dante told police he took his father’s handgun from a locked tool box two nights before the shooting and had practiced using it. At first it would not fire, indicating to him that he should not do this. He told police that he had no experience with guns.

In April 2008, the defense hired a psychologist to conduct a psychological examination of Dante to determine if he was competent to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the offense. The psychologist reported that Dante was competent but that he had been diagnosed previously with PTSD and was currently exhibiting symptoms of PTSD, including fear and a sense of helplessness, agitated behavior, outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, and intrusive memories of past abuse. The psychologist stated that she was not an expert in PTSD and recommended that another expert in PTSD be appointed to assist Dante in his defense of imperfect self-defense.

In April 2008, the defense hired a psychologist to conduct a psychological examination of Dante to determine if he was competent to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the offense. The psychologist reported that Dante was competent but that he had been diagnosed previously with PTSD and was currently exhibiting symptoms of PTSD, including fear and a sense of helplessness, agitated behavior, outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, and intrusive memories of past abuse. The psychologist stated that she was not an expert in PTSD and recommended that another expert in PTSD be appointed to assist Dante in his defense of imperfect self-defense.

On appeal, six of the judges of the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction holding that the trial court properly denied the funds to hire an expert because the expert testimony was intended to support the theory of imperfect self-defense which was not supported by the evidence. Three judges dissented finding that a PTSD expert was necessary because such testimony was necessary to support this defense.

The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed finding that the denial of expert assistance in this case was in fact prejudicial to the assurance of a fair trial. The Court found each case must be decided on a case-by-case basis but that it would be an abuse of discretion to deny funds for an expert if a defendant had provided concrete reasons showing a substantial need for such assistance. The Court found that in this case Dante had met his burden of proof. The expert appointed to assess his competence to stand trial found him competent but indicated he had previously been diagnosed with PTSD and was currently exhibiting its symptoms. She stated she was not an expert in PTSD and therefore could not assist in the preparation of his defense, and specifically that PTSD affected his state of mind at the time of the offense. Although she could recognize the symptoms, she had stated that she did not have the expertise to explain to a jury PTSD’s effects on a person’s mental state.

Relying on Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 80-81 (1985), the Mississippi Supreme Court found that to support his theory of imperfect self-defense, Dante was required to show that he acted without malice and under a bona fide belief that his actions were necessary to avoid death or bodily harm. The Court explained that a defendant under Ake does not have a constitutional right to an expert of his own choosing, but based on the facts of this case, Dante had demonstrated that an expert in PTSD was needed to prepare an adequate defense. The Court determined that lay witnesses could not testify as to the symptoms and characteristics of PTSD and provide a medical diagnosis. An expert could also explain to the jury how a child’s mind could be affected when suffering from PTSD, and the lack of such information deprived Dante of a fair trial. Denying him the funds to hire such an expert was therefore an abuse of discretion and violated his due process right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court then reversed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, and remanded the case for a new trial.

Found in DMHL Volume 32 Issue 2