John Paul Penry met Pamela Carpenter while helping to install appliances in her home. Several weeks later he raped her and stabbed her to death with a pair of scissors. Penry confessed to the crime.

At trial, Penry offered evidence of mental retardation. He introduced this evidence to show that his confession was involuntary and that he lacked the intent required for capital murder.

Jury Doesn’t Buy It

In rebuttal, the state called Dr. Fason, a psychiatrist who had examined Penry during a court-ordered competency examination. Dr. Fason testified that Penry had an antisocial personality disorder, not mental retardation. The jury convicted Penry of capital murder.

At the punishment phase, Penry called Dr. Randall Price, who gave his opinion that Penry suffered mental retardation. In rebuttal, the state called Dr. Quijano who also had examined Penry for competence. Dr. Quijano testified that Penry had an antisocial personality disorder and was likely to be violent in the future.

On appeal, Penry alleged the admission of Dr. Fason’s testimony violated his right against compelled self-incrimination. He further asserted that Dr. Quijano’s testimony on future dangerousness violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Under Powell v.Texas, 492 U.S. 680 (1989), once a capital defendant is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel precludes a competency examination without first notifying counsel that the psychiatric examination will encompass the issue of their client’s future dangerousness. Penry contended that he had no notice that Dr. Quijano’s competency examination could be used against him.

On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found Dr. Fason’s testimony admissible to rebut Penry’s psychiatric evidence. Texas appellate court further found that the trial court notified Penry’s attorney that if he put on a mental status defense, the prosecution could use psychological evidence in rebuttal. The Texas court denied Penry’s appeal. Penry petitioned the US Circuit Court.

Death Penalty Act Limits Review

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act the US Circuit Court found it could grant federal habeas relief only if the state court decision contradicted or unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

The Circuit Court disagreed with Penry’s characterization of Dr. Fason’s testimony as a sham rebuttal by the state, designed not to rebut, but to portray Penry as a psychopath. Penry’s defense centered on his diminished capacity and the idea that his mental status rendered his confessions involuntary. Compelled psychiatric testimony can be used to rebut a mental defense without violating the Fifth Amendment. Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402. (1987).

Furthermore, the trial court notified Penry’s attorney that Dr. Quijano’s testimony could be used in rebuttal if he presented a mental defense. Therefore, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Affirmed.