The Arizona Court of Appeals stated that the court had previously accepted special action jurisdiction in cases involving motions to compel mental-health examinations, but in an issue of first impression, now addressed whether non-expert witness testimony opens the door to a court-ordered examination for rebuttal purposes.
The state of Arizona accused Fernando Acosta of attacking and killing his girlfriend following a single-vehicle accident, according to the opinion. After his arrest, Acosta tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, THC, the antidepressant medication midazolam, and the anti-psychotic medication haloperidol. Acosta was charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, possession of dangerous drugs, and possession of marijuana for sale and filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
