Holmes v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Holmes’s convictions, holding that the trial court properly admitted the recorded psychiatric interview and that Holmes’s constitutional challenges to the interview did not establish plain error. Because Holmes raised an insanity-related defense, he was required to submit to the State’s psychiatric examination without a Sixth Amendment right to counsel or a requirement that Miranda warnings be repeated. The court also held that counsel affirmatively waived any objection to omitting the statutory intellectual-disability verdict instruction.