Illinois: Where a voluntarily committed patient knew he had a right to refuse medication, a trial court's authorization of involuntary medication will not be overturned even where the trial court found that the patient lacked the capacity to make reasoned decisions. The court had considered psychiatric testimony to the effect that the patient would not listen to viable medication options. In Re Barry B., 693 N.E.2d 882 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1998).

Tennessee: The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed a lower court ruling that: 1. defendant did not suffer a constitutional violation in the form of an order compelling him to undergo a mental examination at the state's request even though he filed a notice that he would present an insanity defense and mental condition expert testimony; 2. defendant had no right to an attorney during the court-ordered exam and 3. whether defendant planned to present testimony by the doctors involved in the exam had no bearing on disclosure of the information. State v. Huskey, 964 S.W. 2d 892 (Tenn. 1998).

Michigan: A defense of diminished capacity is not permitted in a trial for bank robbery, since bank robbery is a general intent crime, requiring only that the defendant did, the proscribed act, not that he had a culpable state of mind. United States v. Gonyea, 140 F.3d 649 (6th Cir. 1998).

Massachusetts: No abuse of discretion existed where, in a "garden variety" case, a defendant was not permitted to introduce expert testimony by a psychologist concerning the capacity of eyewitnesses to make identification. The average juror, the court found, was already familiar with the topics covered by the expert's testimony. The court found that the expert's opinions concerned matters with which the average juror would already be familiar. Com. v. Ashley, 694 N.E.2d 862 (Mass. 1998).

Becoming emotional over the loss of female attention does not equate with becoming incompetent to stand trial. The defendant was charged with premeditated murder in avenging the rape of his girlfriend. While he was in jail, she stopped visiting him. A trial judge ruled that, despite his romantic despair, without further manifestations that he did not understand the nature and object of the proceedings, he was indeed competent to stand trial. The Supreme Judicial court affirmed. Com. v. Hung Tan Vo, 693 N.E.2d 1374 (Mass. 1998).

Colorado: A trial court does not have jurisdiction to resolve issues relating to the return of seized property, which once belonged to a not guilty by reason of insanity acquittee. The finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is considered a final adjudication on the merits. People v. Galves, 955 P.2d 582 (Colo.App. 1997).

Texas: Probation conditions (including registering as a sex offender) imposed in an attempt to circumvent a trial court's acquittal of a defendant accused of indecency with a child were held invalid. The judgment was reformed. Speth v. State, 965 S.W.2d 13 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998).

In competency to stand trial matters, where an attorney presents a historical review of a defendant's mental problems without refuting the opinion of a psychologist who testifies that the defendant is competent, a court will not overturn a finding of competence on appeal. Williams v. State, 964 S.W2d 747 (Tex. App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 1998).

Pennsylvania: A schizophrenic defendant is not entitled to a psychiatric examination contemporaneously with a competency to be executed hearing where a psychiatrist had testified, based on prior examinations, that the defendant was not competent to be executed, and another psychiatrist, who had testified that the defendant was so competent, noted that his mental illness was unpredictable. Corn v. Jermyn 709 A.2d 849 (Pa. 1998).

New York: No abuse of discretion by a trial court exists where, after hearing a psychiatrist express doubts over the competency of a defendant to stand trial, the court did not sua sponte conduct a competency hearing to make such a factual determination. The same trial court had previously determined the defendant's fitness to stand trial and the appellate court found that it had made sufficient detailed inquiries into the issue of competence. Determination of a defendant's fitness to stand trial is a judicial matter, not a medical one. People v. Tortorici, 671 N.Y.S.2d 162 (A.D.3 Dept. 1998).