Blevins v. Commonwealth
Docket: No. 1328-89-3
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; December 18, 1990; Virginia; State Appellate Court
Carol Ann Blevins was murdered on April 29, 1988, by Cecil Blevins, who was subsequently convicted of murder and using a firearm during the commission of a felony, receiving a life sentence for murder and two years for the firearm charge. On appeal, Blevins raised two main arguments: (1) the trial court erred in ordering the disclosure of Dr. Savage’s psychiatric report, and (2) the verdict should be overturned because he was acting under an irresistible impulse during the shooting. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the disclosure of psychiatric evaluations. Blevins had been evaluated by Dr. Miller M. Ryans, a state psychiatrist, whose report was sent to defense counsel and voluntarily shared with the Commonwealth. Blevins later consulted Dr. Steven R. Savage and notified the Commonwealth of his intent to present an insanity defense. The Circuit Court ordered an additional evaluation by Dr. Arthur Centor, which was disclosed to both parties. The Commonwealth requested access to all psychiatric evaluations related to Blevins’ sanity. The defense objected, arguing that the Commonwealth was not entitled to Dr. Savage’s report since it had not sought discovery under the relevant court rule. However, the trial court ordered the disclosure based on Code 19.2-169.5(E), which stipulates that once the defense indicates intent to present psychiatric evidence, the Commonwealth is entitled to the results of any evaluations concerning the defendant’s sanity. The court affirmed the trial court's order, stating that the statute's clear language supports the requirement for disclosure. It emphasized that juries are not obligated to accept expert opinions as conclusive and that they have the right to weigh all testimony, including conflicting expert evidence. The court found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Blevins was sane at the time of the offense. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court were upheld. The ruling was affirmed with concurrence from other judges.