High court hears arguments over psychiatric examinations

Thursday, June 27, 2002 | 11:15 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A Clark County prosecutor told the Nevada Supreme Court Wednesday that the district attorney's office was entitled to have an independent psychiatric examination of Alfred Centofanti, III, who is awaiting trial in the killing his ex-wife.

Christopher Laurent, chief deputy district attorney, also said his office was entitled to any findings by a defense psychologist on Centofanti's mental state after the shooting before the District Court trial in Las Vegas.

But Allen Bloom, Centofanti's attorney, said his client does not plan an insanity defense, so the state doesn't have a right to examine Centofanti. Bloom said that would violate the defendant's right not to make any statements.

Bloom also said there is nothing in the law that would require him to turn over the findings of his psychologist before the trial.

The court took the arguments under submission and will rule later.

Centofanti is accused of the Dec. 20, 2000, fatal shooting of Virginia Centofanti.

Bloom said that after the shooting Centofanti was "dazed ...he looked like he was in outer space." The defense wants an expert on post-traumatic stress to testify about the symptoms and that Centofanti's behavior was consistent with those symptoms.

This is not an insanity defense, Bloom said. He argued the prosecution wants to argue that Centofanti was faking his condition after the shooting.

"The state has a right to know what you're going to say," Justice Bob Rose told Bloom.

District Judge Mark Gibbons had agreed with the defense, stopping the prosecution from conducting its sanity examination and looking at the findings of the defense expert.

Laurent told the court, "This is not a poker game where you hold the cards to the end. Discovery is a two-way street. We gave everything over to them."

He said the failure of the defense to turn over findings by the defense expert places the state in an unfavorable position of not being prepared to cross examine the expert.