Opinion
220382
03-29-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. JOSEPH EUGENE SMITH
Jason S. Miyares, Matthew P. Dullaghan, and Tanner M. Russo (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant. Samantha Offutt Thames (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission) for appellee.
From The Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Jason S. Miyares, Matthew P. Dullaghan, and Tanner M. Russo (Office of the Attorney General) for appellant.
Samantha Offutt Thames (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission) for appellee.
GRANTED APPEAL SUMMARY
Assignments of Error
1. The Court of Appeals erred by reversing Smith's convictions based on a finding of error in the trial court's denial of funds for an expert, and its exclusion of expert testimony, on the degree to which mental health disorders, namely major depression and unmedicated anxiety, render individuals more susceptible to false confessions, because Smith did not present those holdings as grounds for reversal in the Court of Appeals.
2. The Court of Appeals erred by misapplying the abuse of discretion standard when it held- erroneously and on the basis of distinctions between variants of anxiety and depression not drawn by Smith-that the effects of major depression and unmedicated anxiety are outside the jury's common understanding and therefore appropriate subjects for expert testimony.
3. The Court of Appeals erred by holding that Smith did not waive any argument that the trial court erred by denying funds for an expert, and by excluding expert testimony, on the susceptibility of individuals with major depression and unmedicated anxiety to false confessions. Smith waived any such argument by failing to proffer Dr. Aaron's testimony, and his waiver rendered any error in the trial court's earlier denials of such testimony harmless.
4. The Court of Appeals erred by holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying funds for expert medical evaluations of Smith for HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder ("HAND") or other unspecified cognitive disorders, as Smith consistently failed to demonstrate a particularized need for such evaluations.
Assignments of Cross-Error
I. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the exclusion of expert testimony on the criticism of the Reid Technique was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
II. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that Mr. Smith was not entitled to any remedy because he did not show he was prejudiced. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals erred by failing to hold that Smith Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated.
III. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to address and find that Mr. Smith's mandatory life sentences are unconstitutional.