Competency Case Law and Statutes - TMCEC
Transcript of Competency Case Law and Statutes - TMCEC
1
CompetencyCase Law and Statutes
Mental HealthHistory and Case Law
He has competency issues
Objectives
▪ Define “competency”
▪ Identify key issues
▪ Explain relationship between categories of law
▪ Describe scope of Code of Crim. Proc.
▪ Discuss challenges
What is “competency”?
▪ Sufficient present ability to consult with person’s lawyer with a degree of rational understanding
▪ A rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
2
A very brief history of mental illness
▪ Demonic possession–Hole in the skull
▪ Imbalances in fluids–Madhouses, asylums
▪ 17th Century hospital reforms
▪ 1896 – Freud “coins” psychoanalysis
A very brief history of the law
▪ 1776 Declaration of Independence
▪ 1789 Constitution
▪ 1868 14thAmendment
▪ 1956 – SCOTUS recognizes due process interest
▪ 1960 – SCOTUS defines competency
Bishop v. U.S.,350 U.S. 961 (1956)
▪ Convicted in 1938 – death sentence
▪ “Mental inquisition” was held in 1940– Insane – sent to mental hospital
▪ “Recovered his reason” in 1952
▪ Claimed he was not competent during trial
▪ Trial court – “prison psychosis”
3
Bishop v. U.S., 350 U.S. 961 (1956)
PER CURIAM
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgement is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for hearing on the sanity of the petitioner at the time of his trial.
The. End.
Bishop v. U.S.,350 U.S. 961 (1956)
▪ Distinguished by Handlon v. U.S.–Bishop was adjudicated insane and sent to a mental hospital for 12 years
–Handlon has never been found insane or committed
Dusky v. U.S.,362 U.S. 402 (1960)
▪ Also a one page opinion
▪ Charged with kidnapping
▪ Examined by Dr. Moreau
▪ Hallucinations, fear, poor reality contact
▪ Oriented to time, place, and person
4
Dusky v. U.S.,362 U.S. 402 (1960)
▪ Def. convicted over insanity defense
▪ SCOTUS agrees with Solicitor General on what the definition of “competency” should be
Dusky v. U.S.,362 U.S. 402 (1960)
“[T]he test must be whether he has sufficient presentability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degreeof rational understanding—and whether he has a rationalas well as a factual understanding of the proceedingsagainst him.”
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 46B.003
▪ (a)(1) Sufficient present ability to consult with person’s lawyer with a degree of rational understanding
▪ (a)(2) A rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
5
Observations
▪Morality towards science
▪ Society towards individual
▪ Psychology didn’t exist in 1789
▪ Present insanity vs. past
▪ Case law plays catch up
Key Issues
▪ Informal inquiry
▪Hearing
▪Commitment
Informal Inquiry
6
Pate v. Robinson,383 U.S. 375 (1966)
▪ Robinson had long history of disturbed behavior–Aggressive, hearing things, shot himself in head
▪ Later kills common law wife
▪ Insanity defense
▪ Never asks for a hearing during trial
Pate v. Robinson,383 U.S. 375 (1966)
▪ State agrees it violates due process to try someone who is incompetent–Argues waiver
▪ Entitled to a hearing on the issue
▪ Incompetent person can’t waive
Pate v. Robinson,383 U.S. 375 (1966)
▪ Look at:– Irrational behavior
–Demeanor at trial
–Prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial
▪ Borrows “bona fide doubt” from Illinois statute
7
Pate v. Robinson,383 U.S. 375 (1966)
▪ Judges Harlan and Black dissented
▪ Agrees that “defendant’s present incompetence may become sufficiently manifest” that trial court must conduct a hearing on that question on its own initiative.
Can incompetent person plead?
▪ Nope. ‐‐ Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 289 (1993)
“This being so, we can conceive of no basis for demanding a higher level of competence for those defendants who choose to plead guilty, if the Dusky standard is adequate for defendants who plead not guilty, it is necessarily adequate for those who plead guilty.”
Drope v. Missouri,420 U.S. 162 (1975)
▪ Def. charged with rape of his wife
▪ Files motion for psychiatric exam–State agrees, but nothing happens
▪ Counsel requests examination
▪ Trial testimony shows mental issues
▪ Def. shoots himself
8
Drope v. Missouri,420 U.S. 162 (1975)
▪ “Long been accepted” – can’t subject incompetent person to trial
▪ Cites Youtsey v. U.S. (6th Cir.)–“insane person can neither plead to an arraignment, be subject to a trial, or, after trial, receive judgement, or, after judgment, go under punishment.”
▪ Due process “right not to be tried”
Ainsworth v. State,493 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)
▪ Def. was accomplice to robbery
▪ Defendant had been previously committed to Rusk
▪ Trial court has def. examined–“completely competent”
▪ Denied competency trial
Ainsworth v. State,493 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)
▪ Informal inquiry– Independent duty
–“reasonable ground to doubt”
▪ Trial court conducted informal inquiry–Previously mentally ill, not incompetent
9
Two other cases to consider
▪ Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)–Look for “recent severe mental illness or bizarre acts”
▪ Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)–Statute now requires “suggestion” rather than doubt
Hearings
Medina v. California,505 U.S. 437 (1992)
▪Medina stole a gun and went on a crime spree
▪ Cal. Statute presumed competence
▪ Required proof by def.
▪ Found competent after competency hearing
▪ Violate due process?
10
Medina v. California,505 U.S. 437 (1992)
▪ SCOTUS says no
▪ Can’t try incompetent defendant–Must suspend trial
▪ Statute does not offend fundamental principle of justice–No tradition regarding hearings–Contemporary practice is not settled either
▪ Can presume competence
But . . . ▪ Requiring the defendant prove competency by “clear and convincing” evidence violates due process–Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996)
Townsend v. State,427 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)
▪ Burglary case – def. requests preliminary hearing on competence–Motion had psychiatrist affidavit
–State objected
▪Well‐established can’t try incompetent person–Procedural requirements aren’t clear
11
Townsend v. State,427 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)
▪ CCA requires separate jury trial on competency–Guagando v. State, 41 Tex. 626–Entitled to trial on “present insanity”
▪ Extra jury instruction not enough–Must have separate trial “uncluttered by evidence of the offense”
–Same jury could also decide guilt afterwards
Commitment
Jackson v. Indiana,406 U.S. 715 (1972)
▪ “Mentally defective deaf mute with a mental level of a pre‐school child.”
▪ Stole 2 purses ($4.00 and $5.00)
▪ Found incompetent
▪ Committed to hospital “until sane”
12
Jackson v. Indiana,406 U.S. 715 (1972)
▪ Equal Protection–Have to show unlikelihood of improvement for civil commitment
▪ Due Process–Requires either release or civil commitment
Recap“Competency”
– rationally understanding and assist counsel
Informal inquiry
– “bona fide doubt” as to competence
– come from any source
Hearing
– separate and uncluttered jury trial
– presume competence
Commitment
– can’t be indefinite
“Requiring that a criminal defendant be competent is a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and assist counsel. While psychiatrists and scholars may find it useful to classify the various kinds and degrees of competence, and while States are free to adopt competency standards that are more elaborate than the Duskyformulation, the Due Process Clause does not impose these additional requirements.”
‐ Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993)