Opinion ID: 776169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Additional Background on Competence

Text: 73 First, as the majority opinion notes, Mr. Bryan is severely afflicted with diabetes and presented significant evidence at a procedurally disfavored retrospective competency hearing that he suffered from a paranoid delusional condition resulting from organic brain damage. He had also previously been determined to be incompetent to assist his counsel in a separate criminal investigation. Mr. Bryan's written correspondence and statements recount incredible stories, offer implausible accounts of events, and indicate the gravity of his dementia. In addition, before us are reams of evidence, including Mr. Bryan's hospitalization records and reports from mental illness experts, detailing Mr. Bryan's continuing battles with a grave mental disorder. His disorder was apparently so grave in fact that one expert stated it place[d] into serious question his competency to stand trial, as well as his legal culpability in the crimes for which he is charged. O.R. at 270. 74 Mr. Bryan's illness manifested itself in his deluded and tragic actions in the case at hand. Mr. Bryan repeated the most significant portions of his earlier attempted crime, using the same location to conceal the body that he had revealed to the police in his earlier crime and the same tactic of seeking to use unsigned and forged checks to repay his so-called business losses. The agreements he forged were literally unbelievable, stating that his aunt owed him millions of dollars. In spite of the impossible nature of his claims, Mr. Bryan at one point proudly displayed one of these checks to the car dealer from whom he rented the car. 75 The majority, citing our admittedly restrictive standard of review, says the argument can be made that we must defer to the jury's finding of competence in what our cases call the procedurally disfavored retrospective competency hearing. Yet, the results of this hearing suggest why they are disfavored. 76 As the majority relates, two mental health experts, Drs. Murphy and Smith, testified that Mr. Bryan was procedurally incompetent at the time of trial. Four defense attorneys testified that Mr. Bryan was unable to assist them due to his irrational beliefs. For example, he was obsessed with a completely fictional revolutionary idea for food processing that he consistently arguedas he did in the previous case as wellthat people had stolen from him. 77 The state introduced its own experts. Dr. Richard Kahoe, Ph.D., evaluated Mr. Bryan a year before trial and concluded, after a brief interview, that he was competent. The prison psychologist also concluded that Mr. Bryan was competent. In spite of the state's evidence, it is difficult to imagine how a jury could find Mr. Bryan competent. Yet, under our standard of review, I agree we are held to reviewing this under a reasonableness standard, and although I cannot in good faith imagine how the result was reached, I must defer to the standard of review as the majority has applied it. However, as we evaluate assistance of counsel under the totality of the circumstances, we must not close our eyes to this troubling evidence.