What Is the Impact of Refusing the LSI-R Assessment?
The State v. Lawson, 364 P.3d 1221 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017) case provides important insight into the consequences of a defendant's refusal to participate in the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), a standardized risk assessment tool used to evaluate a defendant's risk and needs. This case specifically examines whether refusing to take the LSI-R can negatively impact sentencing decisions, particularly when determining eligibility for community corrections programs.
Issue: Can a Defendant’s Refusal to Take the LSI-R Impact Sentencing?
The main issue in State v. Lawson was whether a defendant’s refusal to participate in the LSI-R could result in adverse consequences, such as the imposition of a harsher form of supervised probation. Kansas law (K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 75-5291(a)(2)(E)) requires that defendants be evaluated using a standardized risk assessment tool, like the LSI-R, before being assigned to a community corrections program. The court had to decide what effect Lawson’s refusal to participate in this mandatory assessment would have on his sentencing.
Facts of the Case
Lawson pled guilty to burglary and theft after breaking into a pickup truck. As part of the presentence investigation process, Lawson was required to undergo an LSI-R assessment. The LSI-R is a risk assessment tool designed to evaluate an offender's likelihood of recidivism and assess their needs, such as substance abuse treatment or mental health services. This information is crucial for the court to determine whether a defendant should be placed in a standard probation program or a more intensive supervision program, like community corrections.
However, Lawson refused to complete the LSI-R assessment. His refusal was noted in the presentencing report provided to the district court. Without the results of the LSI-R, the court defaulted to the highest level of supervised probation—community corrections—since it did not have the necessary information to determine whether Lawson posed a lower risk.
Legal Context
Under Kansas law, a district court cannot assign a defendant to a community corrections program unless they are deemed "high risk or needs, or both" based on a mandatory, standardized risk assessment tool like the LSI-R. The LSI-R is used to assess various factors, including a defendant’s criminal history, personal circumstances, and likelihood of reoffending.
In Lawson's case, because he refused to take the LSI-R, the court treated the situation as if the assessment had resulted in a high-risk finding. This led the court to place Lawson in the community corrections program instead of standard probation.
Outcome of the Case
Lawson later violated the terms of his probation and had his probation revoked. The court ordered him to serve a 6-month sentence, which he completed. Due to this, Lawson's appeal on the original sentencing decision was deemed moot by the Kansas Court of Appeals because resolving the issue would no longer impact his legal status.
Although the court dismissed the appeal, it made an important observation regarding Lawson’s refusal to take the LSI-R. The court noted that if Lawson had refused to participate in the LSI-R based on his Fifth Amendment rights (against self-incrimination) rather than on his attorney’s advice, the court would have conducted a detailed analysis to determine whether the refusal was legally justified. However, because Lawson's refusal was not based on Fifth Amendment concerns, the court did not address this issue further.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
Impact of Refusal to Take the LSI-R: If a defendant refuses to take the LSI-R, the court may treat that refusal as if the assessment yielded high-risk results. In Lawson’s case, this led the court to assign him to the community corrections program, which involves more intensive supervision than standard probation. Without the LSI-R results, the court defaulted to the most restrictive probation option.
Discretion of the Court: Kansas law gives courts significant discretion in determining probation programs based on the results of standardized assessments like the LSI-R. If a defendant refuses to participate in these assessments, the court is left with incomplete information, which can lead to a higher level of supervision.
Mootness of the Appeal: The appellate court dismissed Lawson’s appeal as moot because his sentence had already been completed. However, the court hinted that if the refusal to take the LSI-R had involved a Fifth Amendment issue, it would have considered the appeal more seriously.
Potential Fifth Amendment Issue: If a defendant refuses to participate in the LSI-R based on concerns about self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, courts may need to conduct a separate analysis to determine whether the refusal was justified. Although this issue was not directly addressed in Lawson’s case, it is an important point for future cases involving the LSI-R.
Conclusion
In summary, a defendant's refusal to participate in the LSI-R assessment can have serious consequences. Without the results of the assessment, the court may default to assigning the defendant to the most restrictive form of probation, such as community corrections. While the court in State v. Lawson dismissed the case as moot, it made clear that refusal to take the LSI-R could lead to a higher level of supervision, as the court must rely on available information when making sentencing decisions. Defendants considering refusing the LSI-R based on Fifth Amendment rights should be aware that this could lead to additional legal analysis by the court.