Judge delays ruling on whether mental‑health expert may testify in Miss Garton case

An unnamed presiding judge on Thursday reserved ruling on whether Dr. Miller, a mental‑health evaluator proffered by the defense, may testify that defendant Miss Garton’s behavior was consistent with a psychiatric condition rather than intoxication. The court asked defense counsel Reid Myers to produce a declaration or bring Dr. Miller for voir dire before allowing the testimony in front of a jury.

The question came at a motion hearing in two related dockets (480674972 and 4973) after Myers said he would not press an affirmative defense but wanted to challenge the prosecutor’s assertion that Miss Garton was intoxicated on the date of the incident. "All we need her to say is that she's got a history of mental‑health issues that are consistent with her behavior," Myers told the court, arguing a prior evaluation could provide an alternate explanation for the conduct officers observed.

The prosecutor, Miss McDonald, objected that Dr. Miller had not interviewed Miss Garton for this case and had reviewed primarily Whatcom County records and other documents. McDonald told the court there was "no foundation" for Dr. Miller to opine about the defendant’s state at the time of the alleged offense and warned that admitting such testimony without a proffer would mislead the jury.

The judge outlined the balancing question under the rules of evidence: whether testimony that a person has mental‑health conditions and that such conditions can produce certain behaviors would assist the jury without unfairly prejudicing or confusing jurors about the ultimate issue—whether Miss Garton was under the influence. "It is not mutually exclusive that she could both have mental‑health issues and be under the influence," the judge said, and emphasized the court needed more specific information from Dr. Miller about what she would say and the basis for it.

Defense counsel said Dr. Miller’s materials, including a competency evaluation and related notes, had been provided to the prosecutor and the court; counsel said the evaluation included records dated November 2024 and that Dr. Miller would review the police report and other materials before trial. The prosecutor and the court noted substantial time between the incident and some evaluations and questioned whether the expert’s review of older records without contemporaneous observation could support an opinion about the defendant’s state on the date in question.

Because the scope of Dr. Miller’s testimony remained unclear, the judge declined to rule that the testimony could be presented before a jury and said the parties should address the issue outside the jury's presence. The court asked Myers to attempt to obtain either a declaration from Dr. Miller by Monday or to make her available for voir dire so the judge could determine whether a limiting instruction or other conditions would make the testimony admissible.

The court scheduled a pre‑readiness hearing at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday to address the matter and directed counsel to provide any declarations or additional materials in advance. The judge said she would review the submitted report and consider whether testimony could be tailored with limiting instructions so it would "assist the jury and not confuse them."