may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
James Edward Martin,
File No. 97019432
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Minnesota Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, and
Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney, Narda Jones, Assistant City Attorney, 300 Metropolitan Centre, 333 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2010 (for respondent)
William E. McGee, Hennepin County Public Defender, Warren R. Sagstuen, Assistant Public Defender, 317 Second Avenue South, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2700 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Foley, Judge[*].
A jury convicted James Edward Martin of fifth-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.224, subd. 1 (1996). On appeal, Martin argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a psychological examination pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.02 (1996). We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
When reviewing a trial court's preclusion of a defendant's mental illness defense, we evaluate whether the trial court abused its discretion, and will order a new trial only if reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been available. See State v. Lee, 491 N.W.2d 895, 899 (Minn. 1992) (concluding court must determine whether trial court abused its discretion in precluding defendant's proposed mental illness defense); see also State v. Clobes, 422 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn. 1988) (holding if there is no reasonable probability that outcome of trial would have been different had evidence been disclosed, then defendant should not receive new trial).
Martin argues the trial court erred in denying his pretrial request for a psychological examination. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.02, subd. 1 (1996) (providing court may order mental examination of defendant when defense has notified prosecuting attorney of intention to assert defense of mental illness or deficiency, and when defendant in misdemeanor case pleads not guilty by reason of mental illness or mental deficiency). We disagree. The record demonstrates Martin: (1) failed to raise a proposed mental illness defense at any of his pretrial appearances, including the Rasmussen hearing and Spriegl hearing; (2) provided notice to the prosecuting attorney that he intended to raise the issue of self-defense; (3) spoke to his counsel on at least three occasions prior to trial; (4) vigorously participated in jury selection; (5) made admissions, including "I need to go to jail," which were contrary to defense of mental illness; and (6) provided notice of a proposed mental illness defense for the first time on the second day of voir dire. In addition, the trial would be delayed if Martin's motion were granted. Under these circumstances, we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying Martin's motion for a Rule 20.02 examination. See Lee, 491 N.W.2d at 900 (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's proposed mental illness defense).
[ ]* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.