|
Carl E. Lockhart was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, battery, burglary, and assault during the commission of a felony. State v. Lockhart, 208 W.Va. 622 (2000). Lockhart contended that the court committed error by not allowing him to present evidence that he suffered from the Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) which, he claimed, rendered him insane at the time of the offense. [For a general description of multiple personalities, see Andre Moenssens, et al, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES, 4th ed., Foundation Press, at pp. 1127-1129.]
 The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to determine first, whether or not DID could be a basis for an insanity defense. The court determined that it could pass the hurdles of admissibility of scientific evidence -- reliability and relevance. West Virginia Rules of Evidence, Rule 702.
I. Relevance
On the subject of relevance, the court noted that evidence is relevant if it helps to make any fact of consequence more probable or less probable. To be found guilty of a crime, one must have the ability to conduct his/her actions in conformance with the requirements of the law and also appreciate the wrongfulness of such actions. If a defendant's state of mind does not fit this definition of sanity, then the defendant must be found not guilty by reason of insanity. A defendant who has been diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder (or DID) may not meet the requisite standard for sanity. Since one must be criminally sane to be found guilty of a crime, any evidence shedding light on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense is relevant.
The court noted that it was the defendant's burden to raise the insanity defense. In West Virginia, as in all states, the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense is presumed at the start of trial, and there is a 5-part test to overcome that presumption:
"When an accused is relying upon the defense of insanity at the time of the crime charged, the jury should be instructed (1) that there is a presumption the accused was sane at that time; (2) that the burden is upon him to show that he was then insane; (3) that if any evidence introduced by him or by the State fairly raises doubt upon the issue of his sanity at that time, the presumption of sanity ceases to exist; (4) that the State then has the burden to establish the sanity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and, (5) that if the whole proof upon the issue leaves the jury with a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's sanity at that time the jury must accord him the benefit of the doubt and acquit him."
The court concluded that if DID is asserted as a defense of insanity at trial, then DID testimony would be appropriate to help the jury understand the defendant's behavior since DID involves very complex issues. Thus, DID testimony can be relevant.
Reliability
Next the court looked at reliability. To determine reliability, the court had to determine if DID was based on "scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge." West Virginia Rules of Evidence, Rule 104(a). In other words, the expert's findings must reflect scientific knowledge, be derived by the scientific method, and the work product must amount to good science. The court looked at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition's (referred to generally as DSM-IV) "Cautionary Statement" which asserts that the criteria and classifications for DID reflect a consensus of current and evolving knowledge. The West Virginia court was also persuaded by the fact that many other states have allowed DID testimony in their courts. As in those states, the West Virginia court concluded that DID evidence has a sufficient measure of reliability to it, and can therefore be admissible when an insanity defense is presented. However, the court cautioned that its admissibility in a particular instance must be evaluated on the facts of each case.
After determining that DID evidence could be admissible, the court next had to decide if the testimony of Lockhart's witness, Dr. Coffey, was admissible. The court noted that there were three theories for the admissibility of DID expert testimony. However, since none of these tests could be used to support Dr. Coffey's testimony, the court left open the choice of the appropriate test for a later case.
Theory of Admissibility
The first theory supporting the admissibility of DID evidence is the alter theory, which states that there must be a determination of which personality committed the offense and an examination of that personality's state of mind at the time of the offense. Dr. Coffey testified that he was not able to give an opinion concerning Lockhart's mental state at the time of the offense. Dr. Coffey could not tell which personality was in control or how many were taking part in the crime. Dr. Coffey's testimony was therefore not admissible under the alter theory.
A second theory of admissibility is referred to as the unified theory. Under this theory, regardless of the number of personalities involved, one body equals one person and it is that one person's mental state that is at issue. The court quickly dismissed Dr. Coffey's testimony under this theory: "Dr. Coffey offered no testimony that Mr. Lockhart, when viewed as one individual, lacked the capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or to conform his act to the requirements of the law when committing the offenses with which he was charged."
The court then addressed the final theory, the host theory, which postulates that if the host is unaware of an alter's actions and had no ability to stop the alter, then the host is not criminally responsible. Since Dr. Coffey could not say who was in control during the crime, it is unknown what the host was aware of at the time of the offense; therefore, the host theory fails as well.
In sum, the court stated that all Dr. Coffey's testimony provided, at best, was a diagnosis of Lockhart as suffering DID. The court concluded that a diagnosis of DID alone does not even come close to meeting the standard for the insanity defense. The court also noted that Dr. Coffey's testimony was unreliable and would not have helped the trier of fact even if it had been able to support one of the theories.
Why was Dr. Coffey's testimony "unreliable"?
Coffey only conducted two examinations of Lockhart, and both were split into two different sessions. Also, Coffey did not prepare a written report of the second session. The examinations consisted of a sodium amytal (or truth serum) test and resulted in the identification of two "ego fragments." The court was not convinced of the validity of the truth serum test results, especially in Lockhart's case. The court noted that the test was "based on subtleties that merely allowed him to suspect that he was speaking with an alternate personality." Coffey admitted that he applied a more lax standard in diagnosing DID in this case and that normally he would not use a sodium amytal test on an individual such as Lockhart. The court noted that taken in its entirety, the diagnosis appeared speculative and therefore unreliable as evidence.
|
