ÿWPCÓ% ,U>x 03¶ 0<é 0Z% 0L 0ZË 0Z% 0Z 0ZÙ 0Z3 0Z 0ZçU,A 0Jm 0T· 0^  0hi 0rÑ 0|C 0†¿ 0E 1uÕ %J 0dP 0B´ 0Cö Æ9 AIÿ U*H Ùr KR!cö„zv~‚vÓ < Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman:ù ÿÿ8WP DefaultsÓ  ÓÓ ÓÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ!€!ÓÓVL` °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÓÓÔ€ÔÔ€XÔÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:InitialStyle6$ ÿÿ4Outline 1Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó($ ÿÿ&31Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 2Ò ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 3Ò ¸ ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 4Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 5Ò h ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 6Ò À ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 7Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó6$ ÿÿ4Outline 8Ò p ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Ó< Œ 9p`(Geneva2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) XP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$¡¡Ý ƒÿÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóƒ 1 2 3 4 5!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÏÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJune€9,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÌ ýòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔò òà àó ó€€At€the€time€of€the€offense,€insanity€was€a€defense€to€prosecution€if€ð ðat€the€time€of€suchÏconduct,€as€a€result€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect,€the€person€lacked€substantial€capacityÏeither€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€personððs€conduct€or€to€conform€that€conduct€toÏthe€requirements€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)(1991).€€If€the€evidence€raised€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€the€personððs€sanity,€the€burden€of€proof€fell€to€the€state€to€establishÏsanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436€(Tenn.€1994).€ÏEffective€July€1,€1995,€the€law€was€amended€to€provide€that€the€defendant€must€prove,€byÏð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence,ðð€that€ð ðas€a€result€of€a€severe€mental€disease€or€defect,€[heÏor€she]€was€unable€to€appreciate€the€nature€or€wrongfulness€of€[his€or€her]€acts.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)(Supp.€1995).Ì€Ì òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔò òà àó ó€€For€example,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€determined€that€Rule€12.2(c)€did€not€limitÏthe€State€to€a€single€examination€or€a€single€expert,€that€the€defendant€was€not€prejudicedÏby€the€inclusion€of€a€competency€evaluation,€that€the€order€did€not€shift€the€burden€toÏprove€insanity€to€the€defendant,€and€that€the€order€did€not€result€in€the€application€of€theÏwrong€standard€for€insanity.Ì òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔò òà àó ó€€òòSeeóó€òòPresnell€v.€Zantóó,€959€F.2d€1524,€1534€(11th€Cir.€1992);€òòUnited€States€v.€Byersóó,€740ÏF.2d€1104,€1115€(4th€Cir.€1984);€òòNoggle€v.€Marshallóó,€706€F.2d€1408,€1415€(6th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€464€U.S.€1010€(1983);€òòUnited€States€v.€Cohenóó,€530€F.2d€43,€48€(5th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€429€U.S.€855€(1976);€òòState€v.€Schackartóó,€858€P.2d€639,€645€(Ariz.€1993),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó,€511€U.S.€1046€(1994);€òòState€v.€Steigeróó,€590€A.2d€408,€416€(Conn.€1991);€òòWhite€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€451€A.2d€848,€852€(D.C.€App.€1982);òò€Braswell€v.€Stateóó,€371€So.2d€992,€997Ï(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1979),€among€others.Ì ìòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔò òà àó ó€€òòUnited€States€v.€Byersóó,€740€F.2d€at€1121;€òòUnited€States€v.€Cohenóó,€530€F.2d€at€48;ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Bairdóó,€414€F.2d€700,€711€(2d€Cir.€1969),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€396€U.S.€1005Ï(1970);€òòPeople€v.€Mahaffeyóó,€651€N.E.2d€1055,€1064€(Ill.€1995),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€116€S.Ct.€547,Ï133€L.Ed.2d€450€(1995);€òòState€v.€Schackartóó,€858€P.2d€at€646;€òòState€v.€Steigeróó,€590€A.2dÏ408,€420€(Conn.€1991);€òòGrandison€v.€Stateóó,€506€A.2d€580,€593€(Md.€1986);€òòState€v.€Hardyóó,Ï325€S.E.2d€320,€322€(S.C.€1985);€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€681€P.2d€1071,€1073€(Kan.€1984);ÏòòStrickland€v.€Stateóó,€275€S.E.2d€29,€32€(Ga.€1981);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Annotation,€òòRight€of€Accused€inÏCriminal€Prosecution€to€Presence€of€Counsel€at€Court„Appointed€or€Approved€PsychiatricÏExaminationóó,€3€A.L.R.4th€930€(1981€&€Supp.€1996).€€Conversely,€a€minority€of€courts€haveÏheld€that€counsel€should€either€be€present€or€receive€a€recording€of€the€examination.€€òòStateÏv.€Hutchisonóó,€766€P.2d€447€(Wash.€1989);€òòHouston€v.€Stateóó,€602€P.2d€784€(Alaska€1979);ÏòòShepard€v.€Boweóó,€442€P.2d€238€(Or.€1968).Ì þòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔò òà àó ó€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHeflin€v.€Stateóó,€640€S.W.2d€58,€66€(Tex.€App.€1982);€òòPeople€v.€Larsenóó,€385ÏN.E.2d€679,€683€(Ill.€1979),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€444€U.S.€908€(1979);€òòWhite€v.€United€Statesóó,€451ÏA.2d€at€854;€òòPeople€v.€Mahaffeyóó,€651€N.E.2d€at€1064;€òòState€v.€Hardyóó,€325€S.E.2d€at€322;€ÏòòState€v.€Brownóó,€681€P.2d€at€1073;€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€705.€ÌPtPtHHøHÿöÿòV,(ühhØ hd'0ÿÎÿºF ® Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ystem Geneva ÒÒ  ystem Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑßD€"$5%!`|Š` < `€DßÓ  ÓÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ ` °—XÓÔ€#ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFORÏPUBLICATIONÌÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFiled:€ÏJune€9,€1997ó óóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àKNOXÏCRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌ€Vs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€ÏHON.€RICHARD€BAUMGARTNER,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌDAVID€PAUL€MARTIN,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à àNo.€€03„S„01„9604„CR„00040ÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌHerbert€S.€Moncierà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAnn€C.€Shortà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€E.€MooreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKathy€MoranteÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEugene€J.€HoneaÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòòAt€Trial:óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRandall€E.€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€JolleyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#„Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÓÓAFFIRMEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANDERSON,€J.Çà àWe€granted€review€in€this€case€to€determine€whether€a€court„ordered€mentalÏevaluation€violated€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„incrimination€and€the€rightÏto€counsel€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€the€defendant€waived€his€rightÏagainst€self„incrimination€by€asserting€an€insanity€defense€and€that€the€mentalÏevaluation,€which€was€ordered€by€the€trial€court€and€conducted€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.2(c),€did€not€violate€the€right€to€counsel€because€it€did€notÏconstitute€a€critical€stage€of€the€proceedings.€€The€Court€then€affirmed€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€voluntary€manslaughter.€€ÌÌà àWe€hold€that€where€a€defendant€asserts€a€defense€based€on€his€or€herÏmental€state,€a€court„ordered€mental€evaluation€does€not€violate€the€rightÏagainst€self„incrimination€provided€any€statements€made€during€the€evaluation,Ïand€any€ð ðfruitsðð€derived€from€such€statements,€are€used€by€the€prosecution€onlyÏfor€impeachment€or€rebuttal€of€the€defense.€€We€also€hold€that€the€defendantÏdoes€not€have€the€right€to€counsel€during€the€mental€evaluation€itself.€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€while€we€employ€different€reasoning,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€for€the€reasons€articulated€below.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòBACKGROUNDó óóóÌÓ  Óà àDavid€Paul€Martin,€the€defendant,€and€the€victim,€his€second€wife,€had€aÏtumultuous€marriage€marked€by€domestic€disputes,€physical€violence,€andÏnumerous€separations€and€reconciliations.€ÌÌà àIn€May€of€1991,€the€victim€entered€Martinððs€house,€cursed€his€daughter,Ïargued€with€him,€and€then€said€she€wanted€ð ðto€see€him€locked€up€again.ðð€ÏAccording€to€one€witness,€Martin€responded,€ð ðWell,€here€I€go.ðð€€MartinððsÏdaughter,€however,€denied€that€Martin€made€such€a€statement.€€In€any€event,ÏMartin€knocked€the€victim€from€her€chair€and€strangled€her€to€death.€€He€thenÏshowered,€gave€his€children€some€keys€and€money,€and€waited€for€the€policeÏto€arrive.€€ÌÌà àMartin€was€indicted€for€first„degree€murder,€and€he€filed€notice€of€his€intentÏto€rely€on€a€mental€responsibility€defense.€€The€State€moved,€and€the€trial€courtÏordered,€that€the€defendant€undergo€a€mental€examination.€€Martin€moved€forÏan€order€to€protect€his€right€to€counsel,€his€right€against€self„incrimination,€hisÏright€to€confrontation,€his€right€to€a€fair€trial,€and€also€to€assure€that€theÏexamination€was€fairly€administered.€€He€specifically€asked€that€his€counsel€orÏa€defense€expert€be€permitted€to€attend€the€mental€examination.ÌÌà àAt€a€hearing€on€Martinððs€motion€for€a€protective€order,€Dr.€Clifton€Tennison,€aÏpsychiatrist€with€the€Helen€Ross€McNabb€Center,€testified€that:ÌÓÓÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒMy€opinion€is€that,€to€have€anyone€else€present€during€psychiatricÏevaluations€hinder€and€hampers€the€accuracy€of€the€evaluation.€ÏThe€person€will€color€and€change€their€responses,€based€on€whoÏis€in€the€room.€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€compelling€Martin€toÏundergo€a€mental€evaluation€to€determine€his€competency€and€his€mental€stateÏat€the€time€of€the€offense.€€The€order€provided€that€Tennison€could€determineÏwho€could€be€present€during€the€evaluation€and€whether€it€would€be€recordedÏby€video€or€audio€tape.ÌÌà àDr.€Tennison€decided€that€neither€defense€counsel€nor€experts€employed€byÏMartin€would€be€present€at€the€evaluation;€however,€he€allowed€the€examinationÏto€be€videotaped.€€When€Tennison€completed€his€examination,€he€soughtÏpermission€for€Dr.€James€Burrell,€a€clinical€psychologist,€to€conduct€anÏadditional€interview.€€The€trial€court€authorized€Burrellððs€involvement€overÏdefense€objection.€€Dr.€Burrell€did€not€allow€defense€counsel€or€defenseÏexperts€to€be€present,€nor€did€he€allow€the€examination€to€be€recorded.€€ÌÌà àAfter€Martin€renewed€his€notice€to€rely€on€a€mental€responsibility€defense,Íthe€trial€court€entered€an€order€which€stressed€the€following:ÌÓÓÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü Ò[N]o€statements€made€by€[the€defendant]€during€the€court€orderedÏexamination,€or€any€fruits€of€those€statements,€shall€be€introducedÏat€the€trial€of€this€cause€unless€and€until€the€issue€of€mentalÏresponsibility€is€raised€by€[the€defendant],€or€for€impeachmentÏpurposes€as€provided€by€Rule€12.2(c),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€€Any€partyÏwho€intends€to€use€such€statements,€or€the€fruits€thereof,€shallÏfirst€make€application€to€the€bench€outside€the€hearing€of€the€juryÏprior€to€eliciting€testimony€or€introducing€evidence€contemplatedÏby€this€Order.€à àÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÌÌÓÓà àAt€trial,€Martin€presented€the€testimony€of€Dr.€John€Kandilakas,€a€clinicalÏpsychologist€who€treated€him€after€the€offense.€€Dr.€Kandilakas€testified€that€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense,€Martin€was€suffering€from€a€major€depressive€disorderÏand€had€suffered€a€disassociative€reaction.€€He€concluded€that€Martin€met€theÏtest€for€insanity€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„501(a)(1991).× ƒ% ××  ×€€InÏrebuttal,€Drs.€Tennison€and€Burrell€both€agreed€that€Martin€suffered€majorÏdepression€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€They€concluded,€however,€that€he€did€notÏmeet€the€legal€standard€for€insanity€at€the€time€he€committed€the€offense.€€€€€Ìà àAfter€deliberation,€the€jury€convicted€Martin€of€the€lesser€offense€of€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upheld€the€conviction€on€appeal,Ïas€well€as€the€defendantððs€five„year€sentence.€€We€granted€this€appeal€toÏdetermine€whether€the€court„ordered€mental€evaluation€violated€theÏdefendantððs€right€to€counsel€or€right€against€self„incrimination.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòMENTAL€EXAMINATIONSó óóóÌÓ  Óà àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€examining€the€procedural€rule€which€governsÏcourt„ordered€mental€examinations€of€criminal€defendants€in€Tennessee.€€TheÏrule€provides€that€if€the€defendant€intends€to€rely€on€the€defense€of€insanity€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense,€he€or€she€must€notify€the€prosecution€in€writing€prior€toÏtrial.€€€Likewise,€if€the€defendant€intends€to€ð ðintroduce€expert€testimony€relatingÏto€a€mental€disease€or€defect€or€any€other€mental€condition€of€the€defendantÏbearing€on€the€issue€of€his€or€her€guilt,ðð€he€or€she€shall€notify€the€prosecution€inÏwriting€prior€to€trial.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.2(a)€&€(b).ÌÌà àUnder€the€rule,€the€prosecution€may€request€that€the€trial€court€order€theÏdefendant€to€undergo€a€ð ðmental€examination€by€a€psychiatrist€or€the€otherÏexpert€designated€for€this€purpose€in€the€order€of€the€court.ðð€€The€rule,€however,Ïlimits€the€use€of€statements€made€by€the€defendant:€ÌÓÓÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒNo€statement€made€by€the€defendant€in€the€course€of€anyÏexamination€provided€for€by€this€rule,€whether€the€examination€beÏwith€or€without€the€consent€of€the€defendant,€no€testimony€by€theÏexpert€based€upon€such€statement,€and€no€other€fruits€of€theÏstatement€shall€be€admitted€in€evidence€against€the€defendant€inÏany€criminal€proceeding€except€for€impeachment€purposes€or€onÏan€issue€respecting€mental€condition€on€which€the€defendant€hasÏintroduced€testimony.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.2(c).€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€challenged€the€entire€process€under€this€rule€onÏconstitutional€and€other€procedural€grounds,€which€the€lower€courts€rejected.× ƒ& ××  ×€ÏAlthough€we€granted€review€in€this€case€to€address€the€right€to€counsel€andÏright€against€self„incrimination€issues,€the€defendant€insists€that€the€courtsÏmust€exercise€more€supervision€and€control€to€ensure€the€fairness€of€theÏmental€examination€process€and€the€reliability€of€its€results.€€The€StateÏresponds,€in€short,€that€Rule€12.2€sufficiently€protects€the€interests€of€both€theÏdefendant€and€the€prosecution.ÌÌà àPreliminarily,€we€recognize€that€there€are€obvious€concerns€generated€whenÏa€defendant€is€compelled€to€undergo€a€mental€examination€at€which€he€or€sheÍwill,€in€all€likelihood,€discuss€not€only€details€of€his€or€her€life€but€alsoÏinformation€about€the€charged€offense.€€While€numerous€federal€and€stateÏjurisdictions€have€confronted€these€issues,€there€has€been€little€discussion€inÏTennessee€and€essentially€no€detailed€analysis€of€the€procedures€set€forth€inÏRule€12.2.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòSELF„INCRIMINATIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€in€part€thatÏð ðno€person€.€.€.€shall€be€compelled€in€any€criminal€case€to€be€a€witness€againstÏhimself.ðð€€Similarly,€article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€states€that€ð ðin€allÏcriminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€.€.€.€shall€not€be€compelled€to€give€evidenceÏagainst€himself.ðð€€ÌÌà àThese€provisions€protect€the€accused€from€being€compelled€to€provideÏevidence€of€a€testimonial€or€communicative€nature.€€While€we€are€free€to€extendÏgreater€protection€to€citizens€under€our€state€Constitution€than€is€granted€underÏthe€federal€Constitution,€we€have€traditionally€interpreted€article€I,€ðð€9€to€be€noÏbroader€than€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€Moreover,€we€have€never€adopted€a€literalÏinterpretation€of€the€term€ð ðevidenceðð€used€in€article€I,€ðð€9.€€òòSeeóó€òòDelk€v.€Stateóó,€590ÏS.W.2d€435,€440€(Tenn.€1979);€òòState€v.€Frazieróó,€914€S.W.2d€467,€473„74€(Tenn.Ï1996).ÌÌà àThe€defendant€has€vigorously€argued€that€without€adequate€safeguards,€theÏcourt„ordered€mental€examination€process€violated€his€right€against€self„Ïincrimination€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€U.S.ÏConst.€amend.€V;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð9.€€He€maintains€that€the€courts€shouldÏbalance€the€ð ðcompeting€interests€at€stakeðð€by€requiring€(1)€that€the€mentalÏexamination€be€monitored€by€defense€experts€and€counsel,€(2)€that€theÏexamination€be€recorded,€and€(3)€that€the€prosecution€not€have€access€toÏstatements€and€information€from€the€examination€until€such€time€as€it€may€beÏused€at€trial€for€impeachment€or€rebuttal€under€Rule€12.2(c).€€On€the€otherÏhand,€the€State€argues€that€Rule€12.2(c)€protects€the€defendantððs€right€againstÏself„incrimination€by€prohibiting€the€use€of€statements,€or€any€fruits€derivedÏfrom€the€statements,€except€for€impeachment€or€rebuttal€of€mentalÏresponsibility€evidence€introduced€by€the€defense.ÌÌà àTo€support€their€respective€positions,€both€the€State€and€the€defendant€relyÏon€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€decision€of€òòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€451€U.S.€454,€101€S.Ct.Ï1866,€68€L.Ed.2d€359€(1981).€€In€òòEstelleóó,€the€court€ordered€the€defendant€to€beÏexamined€to€determine€his€competency€to€stand€trial.€€Later,€during€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€capital€trial,€the€State€used€the€examiningÏpsychiatristððs€testimony€to€prove€an€aggravating€factor€„€the€defendantððs€futureÍdangerousness.€€The€òòEstelleóó€court€held€that€the€defendant,€who€had€not€raisedÏthe€issues€of€competency€or€sanity,€had€not€introduced€evidence€regardingÏsanity,€and€had€not€been€given€notice€that€the€examination€could€be€usedÏagainst€him€in€the€penalty€phase,€was€denied€his€Fifth€Amendment€rightÏagainst€self„incrimination.€€451€U.S.€at€466,€101€S.Ct.€at€1874.€€ÌÌà àSignificantly,€the€court€in€òòEstelleóó€distinguished€its€facts€from€those€which€weÏnow€confront:ÌÓÓÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒNor€was€the€interview€analogous€to€a€sanity€examinationÏoccasioned€by€a€defendantððs€plea€of€not€guilty€by€reason€ofÏinsanity€at€the€time€of€his€offense.€€òòWhen€a€defendant€asserts€theÏinsanity€defense€and€introduces€supporting€psychiatric€testimony,Ïhis€silence€may€deprive€the€State€of€the€only€means€it€has€ofÏcontroverting€his€proof€on€an€issue€that€he€interjected€into€theÏcaseóó.€€Accordingly,€several€Courts€of€Appeal€have€held€that,€underÏsuch€circumstances,€a€defendant€can€be€required€to€submit€to€aÏsanity€examination€conducted€by€the€prosecutionððs€psychiatrist.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÌÌÓÓ451€U.S.€at€465,€101€S.Ct.€at€1874€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBuchanan€v.ÏKentuckyóó,€483€U.S.€402,€107€S.Ct.€2906,€97€L.Ed.2d€336€(1987).€€Accordingly,Ïthe€limited€holding€of€òòEstelleóó€with€respect€to€the€Fifth€Amendment€is€that€ð ðaÏcriminal€defendant,€who€neither€initiates€a€psychiatric€evaluation€nor€attemptsÏto€introduce€any€psychiatric€evidence,€may€not€be€compelled€to€respond€to€aÏpsychiatrist€if€his€statements€can€be€used€against€him€at€a€capital€sentencingÏproceeding.ðð€€451€U.S.€at€468,€101€S.Ct.€at€1875;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942ÍS.W.2d€489€(Tenn.€1997).€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àBy€contrast,€in€the€Tennessee€case€of€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239Ï(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€497€U.S.€1031€(1990),€the€criminal€defendantÏinitiated€a€psychiatric€evaluation€and€introduced€psychiatric€evidence.€€The€StateÏused€the€psychiatric€report€to€rebut€€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€expert€inÏthe€sentencing€phase€of€the€capital€trial.€€The€defendant€argued€that€useÏviolated€his€right€against€self„incrimination.€€We€held€that€the€evidence€wasÏproperly€admitted€to€rebut€the€defense€evidence€and€to€impeach€the€opinion€ofÏthe€defense€expert.€€òòIdóó.€at€248.ÌÌà àVirtually€every€federal€and€state€court€jurisdiction€has€held€that€where€aÏdefendant€raises€an€insanity€defense,€the€Fifth€Amendment€right€againstÏself„incrimination€is€not€violated€by€a€court„ordered€psychiatric€examination€orÏby€the€prosecutionððs€use€of€evidence€from€the€examination€to€rebut€evidenceÏintroduced€by€the€defendant.× ƒ' ××  ×€€Various€rationales€have€been€advanced€by€theseÏcourts:€that€the€defendant€waives€the€right€by€asserting€an€insanity€defense;€thatÍa€mental€examination€compels€ð ðphysicalðð€or€ð ðrealðð€evidence,€as€opposed€toÏð ðtestimonyðð€or€ð ðcommunicationsðð;€and€that€the€right€against€self„incrimination€isÏnot€applicable€to€statements€concerning€the€issue€of€sanity.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Byersóó,€740€F.2d€at€1111„1113€(discussing€each€rationale).ÌÌà àAn€important€point,€in€our€view,€is€one€suggested€in€òòEstelleóó:€ð ðWhen€aÏdefendant€asserts€the€insanity€defense€and€introduces€supporting€psychiatricÏtestimony,€his€silence€may€deprive€the€State€of€the€only€effective€means€it€has€ofÏcontroverting€his€proof€on€an€issue€that€he€interjected€into€the€case.ðð€€451€U.S.Ïat€465,€101€S.Ct.€at€1874.€€The€New€Jersey€Supreme€Court€expressed€it€thisÏway:ÌÓÓÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒIt€would€be€most€anomalous€to€say€that€a€defendant€may€advanceÏthe€defense€of€insanity,€have€himself€examined€by€his€own€expertsÏand€then€invoke€the€constitutional€guarantees€againstÏself„incrimination€for€the€purpose€of€preventing€examination€by€theÏState.€[Citation€omitted].€€It€would€be€a€strange€doctrine,€indeed,€toÏpermit€a€person€charged€with€[a]€crime€to€put€in€issue€his€want€ofÏmental€capacity€to€commit€it,€and€in€order€to€make€his€pleaÏinvulnerable,€prevent€all€inquiry€into€his€mental€state€or€condition.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Whitlowóó,€210€A.2d€763,€767€(N.J.€1965).€€Moreover,€the€right€againstÏself„incrimination€is€preserved€in€that€any€statements€made€during€theÏexamination,€or€fruits€derived€from€the€statements,€may€be€used€at€trial€only€forÏimpeachment€or€rebuttal€of€the€mental€responsibility€defense.€€òòNoggle€v.ÍMarshallóó,€706€F.2d€at€1415„1416.€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€Rule€12.2(c)€safeguards€the€defendantððs€right€againstÏself„incrimination€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€TheÏdefendant€must€initiate€the€process€by€providing€notice€of€his€or€her€intent€toÏrely€on€a€mental€responsibility€defense€and€to€introduce€expert€testimony€on€theÏissue.€€The€prosecution€may€request,€and€the€trial€court€may€order,€that€theÏdefendant€undergo€a€psychiatric€examination€so€as€to€inquire€further€into€theÏdefendantððs€mental€state.€€The€prosecutionððs€use€of€the€defendantððsÏstatements,€or€the€ð ðfruitsðð€derived€from€such€statements,€is€expressly€limited€toÏimpeachment€or€rebuttal€of€the€evidence€concerning€mental€state€introduced€byÏthe€defendant.€€In€other€words,€such€material€may€not€be€used€by€theÏprosecution€to€prove€the€guilt€of€the€defendant€and€may€not€be€used€if€theÏdefense€does€not€introduce€testimony€at€trial€on€mental€condition.€€Moreover,Ïbecause€the€defendant€likewise€has€access€to€the€information€generated€byÏthe€examination,€he€or€she€is€free€to€object€òòinóó€òòlimineóó€to€any€material€on€theÏbasis€of€privilege,€relevance,€or€any€other€ground.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.2(b).€€ÌÌà àThese€limitations,€in€our€view,€achieve€the€balancing€of€interests€stressedÏnot€only€in€òòEstelleóó,€òòsupraóó,€but€also€in€virtually€every€other€case€decided€on€theÏissue.€€Accordingly,€we€reject€the€defendantððs€argument€that€further€safeguards,Ísuch€as€recording€the€examinations€or€allowing€third€persons€to€monitor€theÏexaminations,€are€necessary€to€preserve€the€right€against€self„incrimination.€ÏWe€also€reject€the€defendantððs€assertion€that€the€prosecution€should€not€haveÏaccess€to€any€information€from€the€examination€until€needed€at€trial€ð ðforÏimpeachment€or€rebuttal.ðð€€Such€a€restriction€defeats€the€balancing€outlinedÏabove€and€also€begs€the€question€of€how€the€prosecution€would€recognizeÏappropriate€impeachment€or€rebuttal€without€access€to€the€material.ÌÌà àWe€emphasize,€however,€that€the€trial€court€ultimately€bears€theÏresponsibility€to€ensure€that€the€prosecutionððs€use€of€the€information€compliesÏwith€Rule€12.2(c).€€Here,€the€trial€courtððs€order,€which€tracked€the€restrictions€setÏforth€in€the€rule€and€also€required€a€jury€out€hearing€prior€to€any€intended€use€ofÏthe€statements,€was€appropriately€designed€to€meet€this€responsibility.€€AÏreview€of€the€record,€moreover,€reveals€that€no€statements€or€evidence€wereÏadmitted€at€trial€in€violation€of€Rule€12.2(c).ÌÌà àIn€summary,€when€a€defendant€indicates€his€or€her€intent€to€rely€on€a€mentalÏresponsibility€defense,€the€trial€court,€on€motion€of€the€district€attorney,€mayÏorder€a€mental€examination.€€No€statements€made€by€the€defendant,€materialÏderived€from€such€statements,€or€expert€testimony€based€on€such€statements,Ïare€admissible€at€trial€except€for€impeachment€or€rebuttal€of€the€mentalÍresponsibility€evidence€introduced€by€the€defense.€€When€these€restrictions€areÏproperly€followed,€as€in€this€case,€the€proceedings€under€Rule€12.2(c)€do€notÏviolate€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„incrimination€under€the€ConstitutionsÏof€the€United€States€or€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€€€€€€€ÌÌÇÓ  Óò òòòRIGHT€TO€COUNSELó óóóÌÓ  Óà àBoth€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€require€the€presenceÏof€counsel€to€represent€a€defendant€not€only€at€trial€but€also€at€ð ðcritical€stagesððÏof€the€proceedings€ð ðwhere€counselððs€absence€might€derogate€from€theÏaccusedððs€right€to€a€fair€trial.ðð€€The€purpose€underlying€the€right€is€to€ð ðpreserveÏthe€defendantððs€basic€right€to€a€fair€trial€as€affected€by€his€[or€her]€rightÏmeaningfully€to€cross€examine€the€witnesses€.€.€.€and€to€have€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€the€trial€itself.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Wadeóó,€388€U.S.€218,Ï226„27,€87€S.Ct.€1926,€1931„32,€18€L.Ed.2d€1149€(1967).€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€court„ordered€mental€examination€was€aÏð ðcritical€stageðð€of€the€proceedings€requiring€the€presence€of€counsel€under€theÏUnited€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.ÏConst.€art.€I,€ðð€9.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€mental€examination€is€not€aÏð ðcritical€stageðð€of€the€proceedings€and€moreover,€that€counselððs€presenceÏwould€impair€or€limit€the€effectiveness€of€the€examination.ÌÌà àIn€òòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€Sixth€AmendmentÏright€to€counsel€was€violated€when€the€defendant€ð ðwas€denied€the€assistanceÏof€his€attorneys€in€making€the€significant€decision€of€whether€to€submit€to€theÏ[psychiatric]€examination€and€to€what€end€the€psychiatristððs€findings€could€beÍemployed.ðð€€Although€the€court€said€that€the€psychiatric€interview€ð ðproved€to€be€aÏððcritical€stageðð€againstðð€the€defendant,€its€holding€was€limited€to€the€question€ofÏwhether€the€defendant€was€entitled€to€consult€with€counsel€òòprioróó€òòtoóó€theÏexamination.€€The€court€did€not€find€a€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€have€counsel€atÏthe€examination€and,€in€fact,€noted€with€apparent€approval€the€Court€of€AppealsððÏfinding€that€ð ðan€attorney€present€during€the€psychiatric€interview€could€contributeÏlittle€and€might€seriously€disrupt€the€examination.ðð€€451€U.S.€at€470„71,€101ÏS.Ct.€at€1877,€n.€14.€ÌÌà àIn€later€clarifying€òòEstelleóó,€the€court€stressed€that€ð ðfor€a€defendant€chargedÏwith€a€capital€crime,€the€decision€whether€to€submit€to€a€psychiatricÏexamination€designed€to€determine€his€future€dangerousness€is€ððliterally€a€lifeÏand€death€matterðð€which€the€defendant€should€not€be€required€to€face€withoutÏððthe€guiding€hand€of€counsel.ðððð€€òòSatterwhite€v.€Texasóó,€486€U.S.€249,€254,€108ÏS.Ct.€1792,€1796,€100€L.Ed.2d€284€(1988).€€Similarly,€the€court€said€that€ð ð[w]hileÏit€may€be€unfair€to€the€state€to€permit€a€defendant€to€use€psychiatric€testimonyÏwithout€allowing€the€state€a€means€to€rebut€that€testimony,€it€certainly€is€notÏunfair€to€the€state€to€provide€counsel€with€notice€before€examining€a€defendantÏconcerning€future€dangerousness.ðð€€òòPowell€v.€Texasóó,€492€U.S.€680,€685,€109ÏS.Ct.€3146,€3150,€106€L.Ed.2d€551€(1989);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2dÏ489€(Tenn.€1997).€€ÌÌà àWhile€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€not€directly€addressed€theÏissue,€a€substantial€majority€of€state€and€federal€jurisdictions€have€held€that€aÏdefendant€does€not€have€the€right€to€counsel€during€a€psychiatric€examination.× ƒ( ××  ×€ÏIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Byersóó,€òòsupraóó,€for€instance,€the€court€distinguished€the€needÏfor€counsel€before€an€examination,€as€opposed€to€during€the€examination€itself,Ïby€pointing€out€that€before€examinationÌÓÓÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü Ò[the€defendant]€was€confronted€by€the€procedural€system€at€theÏpoint€at€which€he€had€to€decide€whether€to€raise€the€insanityÏdefense,€a€determination€that€would€have€several€legalÏconsequences,€including€the€likelihood€of€a€court€order€that€heÏundergo€a€psychiatric€examination.€.€.€.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü Òà àà àà àà à.€.€.€.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒBut€at€the€psychiatric€interview€itself,€[the€defendant]€was€notÏconfronted€by€the€procedural€system;€he€had€no€decisions€in€theÏnature€of€legal€strategy€or€tactics€to€make€„„€not€even,€as€we€haveÏseen,€the€decision€whether€to€refuse,€on€Fifth€AmendmentÏgrounds,€to€answer€the€psychiatristððs€questions.€€The€onlyÏconceivable€role€for€counsel€at€the€examination€would€have€beenÍto€observe.€.€.€.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÌÒ Œ ÒÒ Ü ÒÌÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓ740€F.2d€at€1118„1119.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€numerous€courts€have€considered€the€ð ðpragmaticðð€effect€thatÏcounselððs€presence,€instead€of€rendering€assistance,€would€impede€or€inhibitÏthe€examination.€€Moreover,€a€number€of€courts€have€stressed€that€theÏdefendantððs€rights€to€a€fair€trial€and€to€confrontation€are€sufficiently€preserved€byÏcounselððs€opportunity€to€interview€the€witnesses,€review€the€results€andÏinformation€generated€by€the€examination,€conduct€cross„examination€of€theÏpsychiatric€witnesses,€and€introduce€defense€witnesses.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏSchackartóó,€858€P.2d€at€646„47.× ƒ) ××  ×ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€agree€with€the€courts€which€have€distinguished€the€ð ðcriticalÏstageðð€prior€to€a€psychiatric€examination€from€the€examination€itself.€€We€areÏconvinced€that€the€examination€differs€in€purpose€and€procedure€from€otherÏstages€of€the€adversarial€system,€and€that€counselððs€physical€presence€in€aÏstrictly€passive,€observational€capacity,€is€not€necessary€to€protect€theÏdefendantððs€related€rights€to€a€fair€trial€and€to€confront€witnesses.€€In€particular,Íthe€defendant€has€access€to€the€information€and€results€generated€by€theÏmental€examination,€as€well€as€the€right€to€interview,€subpoena,€andÏcross„examine€the€experts€with€regard€to€their€methodology,€opinions,€andÏresults.€€ÌÌà àThus,€we€conclude€that€the€Sixth€Amendment€of€the€U.S.€Constitution€andÏarticle€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€do€not€require€the€presence€ofÏcounsel€during€a€court„ordered€mental€examination.€€It€follows€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€order,€which€did€not€specifically€permit€counsel€to€attend€and€monitorÏthe€mental€examination,€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€right€to€counsel.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€hold€that€recording€the€mental€examination€is€notÏconstitutionally€required,€our€holding€should€not€be€interpreted€as€prohibitingÏthe€trial€court€from€enhancing€the€integrity€of€the€trial.€€We€fully€endorse€andÏencourage€recording€the€psychiatric€examination€as€a€simple€and€effectiveÏmeans€to€preserve€evidence€and€to€enhance€the€accuracy€and€reliability€of€theÏtruth„seeking€function€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€298€S.E.2d€866,Ï873€(W.Va.€1982).€€A€verbatim€recording€of€the€mental€examination€processÏwould€enhance€the€integrity€of€the€trial€without€the€potential€hindrance€ofÏallowing€counsel€to€be€present€during€the€examination€itself.€€Accordingly,€uponÏa€showing€that€such€a€safeguard€is€feasible€and€not€unduly€intrusive€in€a€givenÍcase,€the€trial€court€has€the€discretion€to€require€video€or€audio€taping€of€theÏpsychiatric€examination€to€assist€both€sides€in€preparing€for€trial.€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€the€trial€court€has€the€authority€to€designate€in€its€order€not€only€theÏexpert€who€is€to€perform€the€examination,€but€also€the€objective€of€theÏexamination.€€The€New€Jersey€Supreme€Court€articulated€our€purpose€best€inÏòòState€v.€Whitlowóó,€òòsupraóó:€€ð ð[T]he€psychiatric€interview€is€a€crucial€diagnostic€tool,Ï[and]€the€judicial€aim€must€be€to€make€it€an€effective€instrument€of€justice.ðð€€210ÏA.2d€at€772.€€This€aim€cannot€be€fully€achieved€unless€the€trial€court€activelyÏoversees€the€process€and€ensures€compliance€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12.2.€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÓ  Óà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€court„ordered€mentalÏexamination€did€not€violate€the€defendantððs€right€against€self„incrimination€orÏright€to€counsel€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€Ïà àThe€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant„appellant,€David€PaulÏMartin.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àRILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌò òConcur:Ìó óBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€and€Holder,€JJ.Ì