Kansas v. Cheever

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationMental-State DefensesExpert Rebuttal TestimonyFifth Amendmentself-incriminationcourt-ordered mental examination

Facts

At his Kansas murder trial, Cheever argued that methamphetamine use rendered him incapable of premeditation and presented expert testimony that his long-term use damaged his brain and that he was acutely intoxicated during the shooting. In an earlier federal prosecution arising from the same events, a federal court had ordered Cheever to submit to a psychiatric examination after he gave notice that he intended to present expert evidence that intoxication negated specific intent. After the defense rested in the state trial, the State called the federal examiner, Dr. Welner, to rebut Cheever's expert and to testify that Cheever shot because of his antisocial personality rather than methamphetamine-impaired brain function. Cheever objected that using statements from the compelled examination violated the Fifth Amendment.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment bar the State from introducing evidence from a court-ordered mental examination to rebut a defendant's expert testimony that voluntary intoxication prevented him from forming the required mental state? More broadly, does Buchanan's rebuttal rule apply when the defense is voluntary intoxication rather than a state-law "mental disease or defect" defense?

Rule

Where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for the limited purpose of rebutting the defendant's evidence. This principle applies to mental-status defenses supported by psychological expert evidence, including evidence aimed at negating mens rea or premeditation, and is not confined to defenses labeled by state law as "mental disease or defect."

🔒

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 a murder trial in Columbus, Ohio, Devin Morris calls a neuropsychologist who personally evaluated him and testifies that severe PCP intoxication prevented him from forming the deliberate intent required for aggravated murder. The prosecution seeks to call a psychiatrist who previously examined Devin under a court order and will testify that Devin was capable of purposeful, goal-directed action at the time of the killing.

Is the psychiatrist's testimony constitutionally admissible?

Explanation. The governing rule is that where a defense expert who examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination to rebut that testimony. The majority made clear this applies to mental-status evidence aimed at negating mens rea, including intoxication-based evidence, and is not limited to formally labeled insanity or mental-disease defenses. The use must be limited to rebuttal.