Schmuhl v. Clarke

894 S.E.2d 854

Andrew SCHMUHL

v.Harold CLARKE, Director

Record No. 211114

Supreme Court of Virginia.

December 14, 2023

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, Randy I. Bellows, Judge

Bernadette M. Donovan (Matthew L. Engle; Donovan & Engle, on briefs), for appellant.

Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia, on brief), for appellee.

PRESENT: Goodwyn, C.J., Powell, Kelsey, McCullough, and Russell, JJ., and Millette and Mims, S.JJ.

OPINION BY JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL

Andrew Schmuhl ("Schmuhl") appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective due to an alleged misunderstanding of the law regarding the admissibility of mental state evidence which resulted in his inability to present crucial expert testimony regarding his sanity at the time that he committed his crimes.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Pretrial

On November 9, 2014, Schmuhl posed as a law enforcement agent and gained entry to his wife’s former employer’s home. During the home invasion, the details of which can be found in Schmuhl v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 281, 818 S.E.2d 71 (2018) (hereafter referred to as Schmuhl I), Schmuhl gravely injured the two occupants of the home before fleeing when one of the occupants was able to activate a panic alarm. On May 18, 2015, Schmuhl was indicted on two counts of abduction for pecuniary benefit, two counts of aggravated malicious wounding, two counts of use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and one count of burglary.

Schmuhl’s appointed counsel, Bradley Haywood ("Haywood") and Andrew Elders ("Elders") (collectively "trial counsel"), retained Dr. Eileen Ryan ("Dr. Ryan"), a psychiatrist, and Dr. Daniel Murrie ("Dr. Murrie"), a clinical and forensic psychologist, to evaluate Schmuhl’s sanity. After evaluating Schmuhl, Dr. Ryan concluded that he was suffering from an acute medication induced delirium at the time of the home invasion and, therefore, he was unable to understand the nature, character, and consequences of his actions.

As a result, Schmuhl’s trial counsel gave notice that

Schmuhl intends to assert at trial that his mental state at the time of the offense met the legal standard for insanity, and intends to present evidence, including expert testimony, in support of this defense. His mental state at the time of the offense resulted from the use of medication.

The Commonwealth moved to compel trial counsel to provide the materials required under Code § 19.2-169.5, including the results of any evaluations of Schmuhl. The Commonwealth further sought to have Schmuhl evaluated by its own mental health expert. In response, trial counsel explained that they were not raising an insanity defense; rather, they clarified that were raising "an involuntary intoxication defense." As part of their response, Schmuhl’s trial counsel noted "that there is a lack of precedent interpreting [the statutes governing an insanity defense] in a case alleging involuntary intoxication" to explain why they gave notice about the nature of their defense.

On November 30, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to compel. At the hearing, trial counsel reiterated their position that they were raising an involuntary intoxication defense, which they believed to be distinct from an insanity defense. As they explained it, "there’s no real reason to have a psychiatric evaluation by a different evaluator" with an involuntary intoxication defense because the intoxicant had already left Schmuhl’s system by the time he could be evaluated. Schmuhl’s trial counsel further asserted that such an evaluation, in the absence of an insanity defense, "would risk violating his constitutional rights including his right to counsel, his right to attorney-client privilege, [and his] Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination." They went on to explain that "the end game of this, of [an] involuntary intoxication defense, if we win, my understanding is that Mr. Schmuhl will walk free, he would have no further obligation to the court, he would not be civilly committed."

The Commonwealth agreed that an involuntary intoxication defense was separate from an insanity defense. However, the Commonwealth argued that, under Stamper v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 707, 324 S.E.2d 682 (1985), Schmuhl would be prohibited from putting on any expert testimony related to his mental status if he only raised an involuntary intoxication defense. The trial court indicated that it agreed with the Commonwealth. Trial counsel responded unequivocally that it was raising an involuntary intoxication defense, not an insanity defense. With regard to the applicability of Stamper, trial counsel requested additional time to brief that issue, which the trial court granted.

In a subsequent memorandum, Schmuhl’s trial counsel argued that Stamper was inapplicable because it "fundamentally concerned the admissibility of expert testimony regarding defenses not recognized in Virginia" which were "offered in support of facts that by law were not in issue in the case." Specifically, they claimed that the defendant in Stamper was advocating for the recognition of a diminished capacity defense in Virginia. Trial counsel clarified that they were not seeking to use a diminished capacity defense; rather, they were raising an involuntary intoxication defense, which was recognized at common law. The Commonwealth responded by insisting that Stamper established a bright-line rule that "a defendant’s mental health is not relevant to his guilt or innocence and is inadmissible."

After considering the parties’ briefs, the trial court held a hearing to decide whether to allow Schmuhl to present mental health evidence at trial. During the hearing, the trial court stated that it was "not certain that Stamper controls the question of whether [trial counsel] can call a mental health expert." The Commonwealth conceded that this was a "complicated issue" because, as the trial court noted, if the "proper predicate is laid, testimony about a Defendant’s mental health might be relevant to an understanding of the impact of a medicine or a combination of medicines." However, the Commonwealth explicitly stated that it was not conceding that such evidence would be admissible in this case because it did not know the nature of the evidence that Schmuhl’s trial counsel would be relying on. Trial counsel reiterated their position that Stamper was about the application of a diminished capacity defense and, therefore, it did not apply to evidence submitted in support of an involuntary intoxication defense. Further, trial counsel repeatedly declined requests from the trial court to proffer how they intended to use the mental health evidence. According to trial counsel, such a proffer would implicate their trial strategy. At the same time, trial counsel acknowledged that they might be wrong, but they "were the ones taking on the risk."

The trial court ruled that, without a proffer from trial counsel regarding how the mental state evidence would be used, it could not rule on that matter before trial. The trial court also noted that trial counsel had acknowledged that, by not making a proffer which would allow it to rule on the admissibility of the mental health evidence, "it puts them at risk of having evidence excluded in the middle of trial."

B. Trial

At trial, after the Commonwealth put on its evidence, the trial court held a hearing outside of the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of Schmuhl’s expert testimony related to his mental health. Trial counsel proffered that Dr. Ryan would testify that Schmuhl was suffering from medication-induced delirium during the home invasion caused by an inappropriate combination of prescription medications. The Commonwealth objected, asserting that medication-induced delirium is not involuntary intoxication, it is a mental disease or defect, and therefore Schmuhl was required to invoke an insanity defense. As trial counsel had not raised an insanity defense, the Commonwealth asserted that it was inappropriate to allow Dr. Ryan to testify about Schmuhl’s mental state under Stamper.¹

After considering the matter, the trial court entered an order prohibiting Schmuhl from presenting "expert psychiatric testimony on the affirmative defense of ‘involuntary intoxication.’ " At the same time, the trial court made clear that its order did not preclude Schmuhl from calling an expert to address "the toxicological effects of ingested medications," provided a proper foundation was laid. Trial counsel moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

Schmuhl testified in his own defense and described all of the medications he was taking prior to the home invasion. He further claimed that he did not remember planning or conducting the home invasion. Dr. Ryan subsequently testified as an expert in toxicology and the pharmacological effects of medication. She testified about each of the medications Schmuhl claimed to have taken prior to the offense, how they affected the brain, and the possible side effects. Dr. Ryan was permitted to opine that certain drugs that Schmuhl was prescribed could affect a person’s mental status and cause confusion, but she was not permitted to testify about reports of "psychotic reactions." The trial court explained that "psychosis is an insanity defense."

Outside of the presence of the jury, Schmuhl’s trial counsel argued that an involuntary intoxication defense involves an altered mental state, which can include psychosis and/or medication induced delirium. They further claimed that they were also asserting an unconsciousness defense, which "does not question whether a defendant understands his actions or knows that they were wrong, but it rather precludes mens rea entirely." According to trial counsel, "[b]y precluding mens rea entirely, psychiatric testimony offered in support of an unconsciousness defense is not...