More Categories

Rule 569 – Examination of Defendant by Mental Health Expert

May 14, 2021 | Criminal Procedure, Pennsylvania

(A) EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT

(1) BY AGREEMENT

(a) The defendant, defendant’s counsel, and the attorney for the Commonwealth may agree to an examination of the defendant by the mental health expert(s) designated in the agreement.
(b) The agreement shall be in writing and signed by the defendant, defendant’s counsel, and the attorney for the Commonwealth, or made orally on the record.
(c) Unless otherwise agreed, the mental health expert(s) promptly shall prepare a written report stating the subject matter, the substance of the facts relied upon, and a summary of the expert’s opinions and the grounds for each opinion.
(2) BY COURT ORDER

(a) Upon motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth, if the court determines the defendant has provided notice of an intent to assert a defense of insanity or mental infirmity or notice of the intention to introduce expert evidence relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant pursuant to Rule 568, the court shall order that the defendant submit to an examination by one or more mental health experts specified in the motion by the Commonwealth for the purpose of determining the mental condition put in issue by the defendant.
(b) When the court orders an examination pursuant to this paragraph, the court on the record shall advise the defendant in person and in the presence of defendant’s counsel:

(i) of the purpose of the examination and the contents of the court’s order;
(ii) that the information obtained from the examination may be used at trial; and
(iii) the potential consequences of the defendant’s refusal to cooperate with the Commonwealth’s mental health expert(s).
(c) The court’s order shall:

(i) specify who may be present at the examination; and
(ii) specify the time within which the mental health expert(s) must submit the written report of the examination.
(d) Upon completion of the examination of the defendant, the mental health expert(s), within the time specified by the court as provided in paragraph (A)(2)(c)(ii), shall prepare a written report stating the subject matter, the substance of the facts relied upon, and a summary of the expert’s opinions and the grounds for each opinion.
(B) DISCLOSURE OF REPORTS BETWEEN PARTIES

(1) The mental health experts’ reports shall be confidential, and not of public record.
(2) Any mental health expert whom either party intends to call to testify concerning the defendant’s mental condition must prepare a written report. No mental health expert may be called to testify concerning the defendant’s mental condition until the expert’s report has been disclosed as provided herein.
(3) The court shall set a reasonable time after the Commonwealth’s expert’s examination for the disclosure of the reports of the parties’ mental health experts.
(C) PROTECTIVE ORDERS

Upon a sufficient showing, the court may at any time order that the disclosure of a report or reports be restricted or deferred for a specified time, or make such other order as is appropriate. Upon motion of any party, the court may permit the showing to be made in camera.

(D) SANCTIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE

At any time during the course of the proceedings, upon motion or sua sponte, if the court determines there has been a failure to comply with this rule, the court may order compliance, may grant a continuance, or may grant other appropriate relief. Upon motion, any hearing to determine if there has been a failure to comply may be held in camera and the record sealed until after disposition of the case.

(E) This rule does not apply to competency proceedings.

234 Pa. Code ยง 569

Committee Explanatory Reports:

Final Report explaining the provisions of new Rule 569 governing the examination of the defendant by mental health experts published with the Court’s Order at 36 Pa.B. 700 (February 11, 2006) .

Final Report explaining the September 21, 2012 revision of the Comment correcting a typographical error in the eighth paragraph published with the Court’s Order at 42 Pa.B. 6251 (October 6, 2012) .