Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The
Honorable Hugh E. Hegyi, Judge No. CR2013-102236
of the Court of Appeals, Division One 240 Ariz. 251 (App.
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney, Jeffrey R.
Duvendack, Amanda M. Parker (argued), Deputy County
Attorneys, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona.
M. Blumenreich, The Blumenreich Law Firm, PLLC, Phoenix; and
Natalee Segal (argued), Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix,
Attorneys for Josh Rasmussen.
D. Heade (argued), Mikel Steinfeld, Phoenix, Attorneys for
Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
JUSTICE GOULD authored the opinion of the Court, in which
CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, and
JUSTICES BRUTINEL, TIMMER, BOLICK and LOPEZ joined.
We hold that, pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure
11.4(b), a defendant who asserts an insanity defense and
voluntarily undergoes a mental health exam must disclose a
complete copy of the expert's examination report,
including any statements made by the defendant concerning the
charges against him. Accordingly, we disapprove the holding
in Austin v. Alfred, 163 Ariz. 397 (App. 1990) to
the extent it permits a defendant to redact such statements
under Rule 11.4(b).
Defendant Josh Rasmussen was indicted for armed robbery and
felony murder. After the charges were filed, his attorney
consulted with several mental health experts regarding a
possible insanity defense. Based on their opinions, defense
counsel filed a supplemental notice of defenses listing
insanity, or guilty except insane, as a defense. A.R.S.
Rasmussen eventually retained a psychologist to testify in
support of his insanity defense. The State and Rasmussen also
agreed to an examination by a joint expert. Both experts
prepared reports that included statements Rasmussen made
about the pending charges.
The State requested copies of the experts' reports.
Defense counsel produced copies, but redacted Rasmussen's
statements. The State moved to compel, seeking disclosure of
complete copies. Rasmussen objected based on Austin,
163 Ariz. at 400, and the superior court denied the
State's motion. Cf. Austin, 163 Ariz. at 400
(stating that Rule 11.4(b) implicitly allows a defendant to
redact his statements from a mental health expert's
report). The State then petitioned the court of appeals for
special action relief.
The court of appeals accepted jurisdiction and granted
relief, reversing the superior court's order. State
v. Hegyi, 240 Ariz. 251, 256-57 ¶¶ 21-22 (App.
2016). Departing from Austin, the court held
"that a defendant who is examined by a
non-court-appointed expert cannot, after giving notice of the
guilty-except-insane defense . . . redact his statements from
his expert's report under Rule 11.4(b)."
Hegyi, 240 Ariz. at 256 ¶ 18.
We granted review to resolve whether Rule 11.4(b) requires a
defendant to disclose his statements contained in a mental
health expert's report. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
article 6, section ...