ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Forty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session
FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1305
capital defendants; mental evaluations
Purpose
Permits the defendant, in a criminal case in which the state intends to seek the death penalty, to object to the initial intelligence prescreening evaluation; expands the definition of who may perform certain competency evaluations on a defendant in a capital case.
Background
If the state files a notice to seek the death penalty in a criminal case, the court must appoint a prescreening psychological expert to determine the defendant’s intelligence quotient (IQ). If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant’s IQ is higher than 75, the notice to seek the death penalty is not dismissed and the expert’s report is sealed. If the prescreening psychological expert determines the defendant’s IQ is 75 or less, a second round of testing is performed.
For the second round of examinations, the state and the defendant each nominate three psychological experts or jointly nominate a single psychological expert. The court then appoints one or more psychological experts, except that the expert who made the prescreening determination of the defendant’s IQ cannot be an expert for the second round of examinations. The expert(s) performing the second round of examinations obtains the records relevant to the defendant’s mental retardation status, examines the defendant and provides a report to the court. If the scores on all the IQ tests are above 70, then notice of intent to seek the death penalty will not be dismissed, but the defendant may introduce evidence of the defendant’s mental retardation or diminished capacity during sentencing.
Before the criminal trial, the court holds a hearing to determine if the defendant has mental retardation. The defendant has the burden of proving mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. A determination by the court that the defendant’s IQ is 65 or lower establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant has mental retardation. If the court finds the defendant has mental retardation, the court dismisses the intent to seek the death penalty and cannot sentence the defendant to death.
There is no anticipated fiscal impact associated with this legislation.
Provisions
1. Permits the defendant to object to the initial prescreening process in a capital case.
2. Specifies that the defendant waives the right to a pretrial determination of mental retardation status if the defendant objects to the initial prescreening.
3. Allows the defendant to offer evidence of his or her mental retardation in the penalty phase of sentencing, even if the defendant waives the right to a pretrial determination of mental retardation status.
4. Requires experts in mental retardation to perform the second round of examinations performed on a defendant in a criminal case in which the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.
5. Requires prescreening psychological experts to have five years, rather than two years, of experience in the testing, evaluation and diagnosis of mental retardation.
6. Defines “expert in mental retardation” as a licensed psychologist or licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician with at least five years’ experience in the testing or testing assessment, evaluation and diagnosis of mental retardation.
7. Removes repetitive statutory language.
8. Makes technical and conforming changes.
9. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Research
January 26, 2006
JE/jas