## Facts

- Ernest Benjamin Smith was indicted for capital murder arising from an armed robbery in which a store clerk was fatally shot; the State sought the death penalty.
- After indictment and appointment of counsel, the trial court ordered a pretrial psychiatric examination to assess Smith’s competency to stand trial.
- A state-appointed psychiatrist examined Smith in jail and reported that Smith was competent; defense counsel were not notified beforehand and learned of the exam only after receiving the report.
- Smith did not initiate the examination, did not request a defense psychiatric evaluation, and did not place his mental condition at issue at trial or sentencing.
- Under Texas capital sentencing law, the jury was required to answer special issues, including whether there was a probability Smith would commit future violent acts constituting a continuing threat to society.
- At the penalty phase, over objection, the State called the psychiatrist to testify from the competency exam that Smith posed a continuing danger; the jury’s answers mandated a death sentence.
- State courts affirmed; federal habeas relief was granted as to sentencing and affirmed on appeal; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether using statements from a court-ordered competency examination at the capital sentencing phase, without Miranda-type warnings or a valid waiver, violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
2. Whether conducting that examination after indictment without notice to, or opportunity for consultation with, defense counsel violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the grant of habeas relief as to the sentence and vacated the death sentence; the conviction was not disturbed.
- The Fifth Amendment was violated because Smith, compelled to undergo a custodial psychiatric interrogation, was not warned that he could remain silent and that his statements could be used against him at sentencing.
- The Sixth Amendment was violated because the psychiatric examination, intended for use on the sentencing question of future dangerousness, was a critical stage after the right to counsel attached, and counsel lacked notice and an opportunity to advise Smith about participation and consequences.

## Legal Principles

- Fifth Amendment protections apply at capital sentencing as well as at the guilt phase when the State uses compelled statements to obtain the death penalty.
- Statements made during a court-ordered psychiatric examination are not exempt from the Fifth Amendment merely because they are elicited in a clinical setting.
- When the State seeks to use a psychiatric examination to gather evidence for capital sentencing, it must provide Miranda-type warnings and obtain a knowing, voluntary waiver before eliciting incriminating statements.
- A court-ordered psychiatric examination that can produce evidence used to secure a death sentence is a critical stage of the prosecution once adversary proceedings have begun.
- After the right to counsel attaches, the defense must receive notice sufficient to permit consultation and informed legal advice about the scope and sentencing consequences of the examination.
- Different considerations may apply when a defendant affirmatively places mental condition in issue or offers psychiatric evidence, allowing the State to seek examination for rebuttal.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the State could not use testimony derived from a court-ordered competency examination to prove future dangerousness at a capital sentencing proceeding without prior warnings, waiver, and meaningful involvement of counsel; the resulting death sentence was set aside.


Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981)