27 N.Y.2d 432 (1971)
r
r
A defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity waives their privilege against self-incrimination to the extent necessary for a psychiatric examination, but retains the right to counsel during the examination.
r
r
Summary
r
Rufus Lee, indicted for murder, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He refused to answer questions during a court-ordered psychiatric examination, citing self-incrimination. The trial court struck his insanity defense. The New York Court of Appeals held that pleading insanity waives the privilege against self-incrimination for the scope of the mental evaluation. The court found striking the plea was improper, but a defendant who refuses to cooperate with a mental examination may be precluded from presenting their own psychiatric evidence at trial. The court clarified the role of counsel, establishing the right to have counsel present as an observer during psychiatric evaluations.
r
r
Facts
r
Rufus Lee was indicted for murdering two women shortly after being released from a mental institution.
r
He initially pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and a psychiatric examination was ordered.
r
At the first trial, three psychiatrists testified for Lee, stating he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the nature of his actions due to a mental defect. The prosecution presented one psychiatrist who testified Lee was sane based on hospital records.
r
The jury found Lee guilty, but the Appellate Division reversed, citing insufficient proof of sanity.
r
Prior to the retrial, Lee refused to answer questions during a new psychiatric examination, asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The County Court struck Lee’s insanity plea and barred him from presenting psychiatric evidence.
r
Lee initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking to prevent the trial court from striking his insanity defense.
r
The Appellate Division vacated the order striking the defense but directed another mental examination without non-medical personnel present.
r
The Court of Appeals granted cross-appeals to resolve whether the trial court properly struck Lee’s insanity plea and the conditions surrounding the psychiatric examination.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity can refuse to answer questions during a court-ordered psychiatric examination based on the privilege against self-incrimination.
r
Whether a trial court can strike a defendant’s insanity plea as a sanction for refusing to cooperate with a psychiatric examination.
r
Whether a defendant has a right to counsel during a pretrial psychiatric examination, and if so, what is the scope of counsel’s role?
r
r
Holding
r
No, because a defendant waives the privilege against self-incrimination when raising an insanity defense to the extent the psychiatric examination is necessary to determine sanity.
r
No, because the defendant’s capacity to commit a crime is placed in issue by the plea itself and should not be punished.
r
Yes, because a pretrial psychiatric examination is a critical stage of the prosecution where the presence of counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair trial; however, counsel’s role is limited to that of an observer.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court balanced the state’s interest in bringing criminals to justice with the defendant’s constitutional rights.
r
While the privilege against self-incrimination protects against testimonial disclosures, the court found pretrial psychiatric examinations do not fit neatly into the physical vs. testimonial evidence dichotomy outlined in Schmerber v. California.
r
The court reasoned that by raising the insanity defense, the defendant puts his mental state at issue, thus waiving the privilege against self-incrimination to the extent necessary for the examination. Quoting People v. Esposito, the court stated that defendants