Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Ake v. Oklahoma

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureDue ProcessIndigent DefendantsPsychiatric AssistanceCapital SentencingFourteenth Amendmentdue processfundamental fairness

Facts

After Ake was charged with murder and related offenses, his bizarre behavior led the trial court to order a psychiatric examination for competency, and state psychiatrists found him incompetent before later concluding he had become competent while heavily medicated with Thorazine. Before trial, Ake's lawyer notified the court that insanity would be the sole defense and requested psychiatric assistance or funds for an examination of Ake's mental condition at the time of the offense, but the court denied the request because Ake was indigent. At trial, no expert testified about Ake's sanity at the time of the offense because none had examined him on that question, and the jury rejected his insanity defense. At capital sentencing, the State relied significantly on state psychiatrists' testimony that Ake was dangerous, and Ake had no psychiatric expert to rebut that evidence or present mitigation.

Issue

Whether due process requires a State to provide an indigent defendant access to psychiatric examination and assistance when the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial. The case also asks whether due process requires similar psychiatric assistance at the capital sentencing phase when the State presents psychiatric evidence of future dangerousness.

Rule

When an indigent defendant makes an ex parte threshold showing to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. In a capital sentencing proceeding, when the State presents psychiatric evidence of the defendant's future dangerousness, due process likewise requires access to psychiatric examination, testimony, and assistance in preparation on relevant issues. The defendant has no constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, indigent defendant Luis Navarro is charged with armed robbery. Before trial, defense counsel files an ex parte motion stating that Navarro has a long history of delusions, was hospitalized for psychosis two weeks after the incident, and will rely on insanity as his principal defense, but no psychiatrist has examined his mental state at the time of the offense.

Is due process most likely violated if the trial judge denies the request solely because the county does not fund defense experts for indigent defendants?

Explanation. Due process requires the State to assure an indigent defendant access to a competent psychiatrist when the defendant makes an ex parte threshold showing that sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial. The Court emphasized meaningful access to the basic tools of an adequate defense and the high risk of error when mental condition is seriously in question. The right is triggered by the showing, not by prior proof of insanity.