IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _______

============================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

============================================

MOTION TO SUPPRESS PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE

COMES NOW Mr. CLIENT, by counsel, and respectfully moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16 & 17 of the Louisiana Constitution to suppress psychiatric evidence against him as being unconstitutionally obtained. As grounds for his motion Mr. CLIENT states:
1. Mr. Client was not given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), prior to the examination, and any warnings which were given were inadequate. Furthermore, Mr. CLIENT did not make a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. Additionally, defense counsel was notified that the examination would encompass only Mr. CLIENT's competency to stand trial. However, the State now apparently seeks to use the testimony of the psychiatrist for purposes other than establishing the competency of the defendant. To admit the testimony of the psychiatrist who examined Mr. CLIENT would therefore violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 467-68, 101 S. Ct. 1866, 68 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1981); Battie v. Estelle, 655 F.2d 692, 695-96, 699-701 (5th Cir. 1981).
2. To admit the testimony of the psychiatrist without adequate notice to defense counsel of the examination or the precise scope of the examination violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. at 470; Spivey v. Zant, 661 F.2d 464, 476 (5th Cir. 1981), cert._denied, 102 S. Ct. 3495 (1982).
3. A person does not waive the Estelle v. Smith protections merely by requesting a competency examination. Battie v. Estelle, 655 F.2d at 700-702. As the Court of Appeals observed in Battie, the use of a psychiatric examination to determine a person's competency to stand trial is dramatically different from an examination which is used to determine a person's criminal responsibility. Id., 655 F.2d at 700-01. The state may use a competency examination to establish that a person understands the charges against him and can assist in his defense; however, when the same type of examination is used to determine a defendant's culpability or responsibility for the crimes charged against him, the Fifth Amendment privilege is implicated, because the use of a psychiatric or psychological examination in this context may assist the state in establishing the basis for imposition of a criminal punishment. Battie, 655 F.2d at 701. Therefore, the state should not be allowed to introduce psychiatric testimony at either phase of defendant's trial, since the principles of Estelle v. Smith apply regardless of whether the tainted psychiatric testimony is offered at the culpability phase of the trial or the sentencing hearing. See Spivey v. Zant.
WHEREFORE, Mr. CLIENT requests that an order be entered prohibiting the state from offering the testimony of any psychiatrist or psychologist at either phase of the trial.
??