## Facts

- James C. McCulloch stabbed his wife; she entered a grocery store bleeding from a stab wound.
- Two customers saw a man with a knife run past the store, followed him to his home, and police recovered a bloodstained knife in the kitchen sink.
- McCulloch admitted to police that he stabbed his wife and did not dispute he committed the killing.
- The trial court appointed Dr. Jerome S. Nichols, a licensed clinical psychologist, to evaluate McCulloch’s competency to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the offense; Nichols concluded McCulloch was competent and would be found sane at the time of the offense.
- While jailed, McCulloch attempted suicide; Nichols later found him incompetent, prompting commitment to Central State Hospital for treatment and restoration of competency.
- After McCulloch filed notice of an insanity defense, the court ordered an additional examination at Central State Hospital; evaluators found him sane at the time of the offense.
- The day before trial, McCulloch sought appointment of a psychiatrist (including a former treating psychiatrist) to evaluate sanity; the trial court denied the request as speculative and unsupported by a particularized need.
- McCulloch also proffered lay testimony that he appeared “crazy” or “depressed” near the time of the offense; the trial court excluded it for lack of expert or factual foundation supporting legal insanity.
- A jury convicted McCulloch of first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether an indigent defendant who has already received court-appointed mental-health evaluations is entitled to a second court-appointed expert (a psychiatrist) to re-evaluate sanity at the time of the offense.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding lay testimony about the defendant appearing “crazy” or “depressed” when the defense lacked expert evidence supporting legal insanity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the conviction.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of a second mental-health expert because the defendant received adequate evaluations and showed no particularized need.
- The trial court properly excluded the proffered lay testimony on sanity because it lacked an expert foundation tending to prove legal insanity and risked misleading the jury.

## Legal Principles

- An indigent defendant is entitled to adequate mental-health assistance when mental condition is legitimately in issue, not to multiple or duplicative court-appointed experts or an expert of the defendant’s choosing.
- Appointment of an additional mental-health expert beyond the court-provided evaluation(s) is discretionary and requires a specific, non-speculative showing of need.
- Lay witnesses may describe observed behavior, but lay characterizations implying legal insanity may be excluded when unsupported by competent expert evidence establishing the legal insanity standard.

## Conclusion

Because McCulloch received qualified mental-health evaluations that addressed competency and sanity and failed to show a particularized need for another expert, and because the proffered lay opinions on sanity lacked an expert foundation relevant to legal insanity, the Court of Appeals affirmed his first-degree murder conviction.


McCulloch v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 769, 514 S.E.2d 797 (Va. Ct. App. 1999)