State v. Martin

The defendant was convicted of second-degree assault. He raises two issues on appeal:

1. Was it error to refuse psychiatric evidence concerning his mental condition, and

2. Was it error to refuse a proposed instruction on criminal intent.

The first contention is that the testimony of a psychiatrist who examined the defendant several days after his arrest should have been admitted. Defense counsel stated in the absence of the jury:

[I]t is my offer of proof that, number one, he [the psychiatrist] would form the opinion that Mr. Martin is schizophrenic. He would state what to him that means, and I…