discussing New Jersey case, Court recognized that evidence of alcoholism and commitments to institutions on that account is proper for impeachment, but viewed refusal to allow defense request for order directing involuntary psychiatric examination of a witness as “an entirely different matter”
How later courts described this case
- discussing New Jersey case, Court recognized that evidence of alcoholism and commitments to institutions on that account is proper for impeachment, but viewed refusal to allow defense request for order directing involuntary psychiatric examination of a witness as “an entirely different matter”
- stating that the prospect of a psychological exam may "discourage the honest, innocent victim of a genuine assault from going to the authorities with a complaint"
- psychological examination is "an inquisition into [the victim's] most personal and private relations and past history"
- Conspiracy is not a lesser included offense of accessory before the fact based on similar reasoning
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Clontz, 305 N.C. 116 (1982)
Judge Becton, in his dissent, took the position that the opinion in Looney was inconclusive and was distinguishable from instant case.
The opinion
Justice Exum
concurring.
As have most of the well-considered decisions on the subject, to which the majority refers, I would conclude that our trial judges have the power, to be carefully used in the exercise of their sound discretion, to order in appropriate circumstances the psychiatric examination of any witness as a condition to receiving the testimony of that witness. In this case the denial of defendant’s motion for such an examination was well within the discretion of the trial judge and should not be held for error.
As the majority wisely recognizes the witness’ rights must be given due consideration. Defendant should be required to make a strong showing that the witness’ mental make up is such that a psychiatric examination would probably reveal either that the witness is incompetent or that the witness’ credibility may be subject to serious question. Situations calling for the entry of such an order would, it seems, be rare indeed. But if called for, our judges should have the power to enter the order.