Kansas v. Cheever

Background

A man named Scott Cheever was charged with killing a sheriff after using methamphetamine. In a prior federal proceeding, a court ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Cheever. At his later state trial Cheever’s expert said his drug use impaired his ability to form the intent to premeditate. The State then called the psychiatrist who had examined him in the federal case to challenge that defense. The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the conviction, saying the use of the court-ordered exam violated Cheever’s right against being forced to testify against himself.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the Fifth Amendment blocks the government from using a court-ordered mental exam to rebut a defendant’s expert testimony that intoxication prevented the required criminal intent. The Justices relied on prior decisions that allow rebuttal when a defendant puts mental status at issue. The Court said excluding rebuttal would let a defendant present a one-sided expert view to the jury. It therefore held that the Fifth Amendment does not bar using evidence from a court-ordered psychiatric exam for the limited purpose of rebutting a defendant’s mental-status evidence and reversed the Kansas decision.

Real world impact

Going forward, prosecutors may use testimony or findings from court-ordered psychiatric exams to counter a defendant’s expert claims that drugs or other mental-status evidence negated intent. The Court left open whether specific testimony exceeded acceptable rebuttal limits and noted states can still impose narrower rules. The case is returned for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.