Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Pretrial Incompetence

Text: ¶ 8 In January 1992, Dr. Larry Morris, a clinical psychologist, evaluated Defendant and concluded that he was a seriously dysfunctional 36-year-old man who appears to be suffering from a psychotic disorder. His clinical presentation suggests Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, Chronic. In my opinion a formal Rule 11 evaluation and determination is warranted in this case. Defense counsel requested a competency determination pursuant to Rule 11, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The prosecutor accused Defendant of faking symptoms after being primed by the doctor. The court ordered a Rule 11 examination. ¶ 9 The State refused to nominate a mental health expert. The court then ordered an evaluation by the Court Clinic, which assigned the matter to Dr. Todd Flynn, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Flynn's March 26, 1992, report concluded, [T]here is sufficient cause to believe that Mr. Hughes suffers from a Paranoid-Delusional Disorder or chronic Paranoid-Schizophrenia which includes grandiose delusions which might significantly detract from his ability to cooperate with counsel and meaningfully participate in a jury trial or other legal proceeding. ¶ 10 In April 1992, on the basis of reports from Dr. Morris and Dr. Flynn, the court found Defendant incompetent to stand trial and ordered him committed until his competency was restored. In July 1992, Dr. Jack Potts, Associate Medical Director of Psychiatric Services of the Maricopa County Department of Health Services, wrote to the court that Defendant was now competent. Dr. Potts also wrote, [I]f at the time of the alleged offense [Defendant] was similarly paranoid as he was when he presented to us there may be an issue as to his intention and/or criminal culpability. The court found Defendant competent to stand trial. ¶ 11 In October 1992, defense counsel requested another evaluation based on his own belief that Defendant had degenerated and was no longer competent. The court ordered an evaluation. At a February 5, 1993, hearing, Defendant called three expert witnesses and the State called no witnesses. Dr. Potts testified that Defendant's mental condition had deteriorated because he was back in the Pima County Jail and was not receiving Navane. On questioning from the court, Dr. Potts said that Defendant should receive five milligrams a day of Navane or similar medication. Dr. Flynn testified that Defendant had delusions of persecution that included Dr. Flynn, the prosecutor, and defense counsel, who Defendant believed was part of the prosecutorial system. Dr. Flynn testified that Defendant's mental illness was chronic, it was not something that just popped up yesterday or last week or last month, and it provided reasonable grounds to question [Defendant's] ability to cooperate with counsel in formulating a defense and in participating in a trial. Dr. Morris testified that Defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic who, without medication, had regressed to the point of present incompetence. ¶ 12 The court made no finding of incompetence, but it ordered the Medical Director of the Pima County Jail to evaluate Defendant for the administration of Navane at a dosage of five milligrams per day, and it ordered that the jail notify the court if it was unable or unwilling to so medicate Defendant. ¶ 13 On March 26, 1993, Dr. Catherine Boyer, a clinical psychologist at the Court Clinic, became the fourth expert to testify that Defendant was presently incompetent. She said that Defendant believed he could hear people's thoughts and he was very suspicious of defense counsel. She saw no evidence of malingering; to the contrary, she thought that Defendant seemed very intent on showing that he was not mentally ill and that he was able to proceed with his case. The State called no witnesses.