Opinion ID: 275418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: mental competence

Text: 14 On December 1, 1961, about a week after the homicide, pursuant to an affidavit of an attorney retained by his family, Wilson was committed to the Dorothea Dix Hospital, the state hospital for the insane, at Raleigh for observation, examination and a report as to his mental condition. On January 30, 1962, Dr. Walter A. Sykes, Superintendent of the Dorothea Dix Hospital, reported that Wilson was not competent to stand trial and recommended that he be committed to the state hospital for treatment, which was done. Nearly a year later, on December 6, 1962, Dr. Sykes again reported that Wilson was still not competent to stand trial. Finally, on February 26, 1963, fifteen months after the initial commitment, Dr. Sykes wrote to the Sheriff of Wake County enclosing a diagnostic conference report stating that Wilson was without psychosis, was able to plead to the bill of indictment, was able to understand the charges against him, and that he knew the difference between right and wrong. Wilson was thereafter returned to the custody of the Wake County Sheriff and tried on October 29-31, 1963. 15 More than a fourth of the trial time was consumed in the examination of the same Dr. Walter Sykes, who testified that in his opinion the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong on the day of the homicide, November 25, 1961. Other competent lay testimony was to the contrary. 5 16 Wilson's history, related by Dr. Sykes, included a few days in a psychiatric hospital in 1954, at which time he suffered from memory loss and loss of contact with reality. Although there were other hospitalizations, Sykes thought the next significant one was in October of 1961, when Wilson, highly nervous and anxious, was admitted to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Durham. 17 Although Dr. Sykes was examined extensively by state and defense counsel on the issue of sanity at time of the homicide, he was asked only one question bearing upon Wilson's competency to stand trial. In response, he expressed the opinion that the defendant still is in need of further treatment but that he has regained or has reached the point where he now knows right from wrong   . 18 No motion was made to the trial judge that there ought to be a hearing to determine Wilson's mental capacity to plead to the indictment and stand trial. Nothing occurred at the trial to indicate to the trial judge the possibility of lack of competence of Wilson to stand trial. At the post-conviction hearing, one of his privately-retained trial counsel testified that he behaved as a normal person, conferred frequently with counsel, and understood what was going on as well as any other defendant who is not used to a trial of a lawsuit. Counsel said that he asked Wilson questions during the trial and always got what he considered to be satisfactory answers. At the trial, neither Wilson nor anyone else suggested to counsel that Wilson might not be competent to stand trial. Wilson's other lawyer testified at the post-conviction hearing that he considered Wilson incompetent to stand trial but that he never mentioned his feeling to anyone, and particularly did not mention it to the judge. On further examination, this lawyer testified that repeatedly during the course of the trial Wilson suggested questions and advised with counsel concerning various aspects of the case and that he was completely rational in all of the answers given counsel and in making suggestions. Finally, counsel explained what he meant by his previous testimony in these words: 19 Mr. Wilson would answer any question that I asked him in an intelligent manner until we got down to his wife and his brothers-in-law and then he became absolutely irrational. 20 Q. When you talked about his killing his wife in other words the thing he was on trial for? 21
22 We cannot say with any degree of confidence that such a reaction is atypical of a competent person in such a situation. 23 It has been recently held, March 7, 1966, that where the evidence at trial raises a bona fide doubt as to a defendant's competence to stand trial the trial judge, on his own motion, must invoke an adequate state procedure to protect the right not to be put to trial unless legally competent. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed.2d 815 (1966). 24 We think it probable that Pate will be given retrospective effect for the practical reason that claims of insanity are likely to be relatively infrequent compared to the high incidence of alleged improper confessions under Escobedo and Miranda and alleged illegal evidence under Mapp. See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L. Ed.2d 601 (1965). But the question of retrospective operation of Pate need not be decided, because assuming it, we think Wilson's case is distinguishable. 25 At Robinson's trial, the issue of his incompetence to stand trial was raised. Indeed, in summation, defense counsel emphasized: Our defense is clear   it is as to the sanity of the defendant at the time of the crime and also as to the present time. The record showed that counsel throughout the proceedings insisted that Robinson's present sanity was very much in issue. Counsel elicited Mrs. Robinson's opinion of Robinson's present sanity, and in his summation he asserted that Robinson should be found not guilty and presently insane on the basis of testimony that we have heard. 26 Also important to the Pate decision was the omission of the state psychiatrist to include a finding of sanity. The stipulation (offered in lieu of testimony) was only that the psychiatrist, if present, would testify that in his opinion Robinson knew the nature of the charges against him and was able to cooperate with counsel when he examined him two or three months before trial. 6 27 Robinson was convicted in an unduly hurried trial without a fair opportunity to obtain expert psychiatric testimony, and without sufficient development of the facts on the issues of Robinson's insanity when he committed the homicide and his present incompetence. Pate v. Robinson, supra, 383 U.S. at 377, 86 S.Ct. at 838. 28 Wilson, on the contrary, was not an indigent, employed his own competent counsel, was not rushed to trial, was not denied the opportunity to obtain psychiatric testimony, was afforded the opportunity to fully examine Dr. Sykes, the psychiatrist, and took advantage of the opportunity. It was never contended at Wilson's trial that he was incompetent to stand trial, and the only question asked of the psychiatrist in that regard elicited a response tending to show competence. 29 A comparison of the medical history of Robinson as compared with Wilson is also significant. Robinson had a long, continuous history of disturbed behavior including another homicide prior to the one then being prosecuted and attempted suicide. Wilson's history, previously summarized, was not dramatic prior to the day of the homicide and was not of the sort to suggest to the trial judge the possibility of his incompetence to stand trial — especially considering the presence and testimony of the very doctor who had certified both his sanity and his competence. 30 We think the evidence in Wilson's case did not raise a bona fide doubt as to Wilson's competence to stand trial so as to require that the judge on his own motion should have stopped the trial and inquired into Wilson's present sanity. 31 IV. THE CHOICE NOT TO APPEAL AND THE ALLEGED DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL 32 Immediately after his conviction, Wilson filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Subsequently, it was withdrawn on the advice of both counsel, who pointed out to Wilson that if he got a new trial he might possibly be thereafter sentenced to death, and that if he were acquitted on the ground of insanity at the time of the crime, which in the opinion of counsel was the only defense he had, he would be committed to the state hospital for the insane. The state judge who conducted a plenary hearing over a two-day period found as a fact that both counsel advised him against perfecting his appeal but left the decision to him, and that he voluntarily, intelligently, and understandingly decided to withdraw and did withdraw his appeal. Our examination of the transcript of the post-conviction hearing shows that this finding is supported by substantial evidence. The state judge further found as a fact that Wilson's action in withdrawing his appeal was not caused or motivated by inability to have counsel and to obtain a transcript of his trial. This finding also rests on adequate support in the record. A federal court may accept the findings of fact of a state judge at a post-conviction hearing if supported by substantial evidence and if arrived at in a full and procedurally fair hearing. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745 (1963). 33 Since Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), it has been settled that state procedural defaults, such as a failure to appeal, do not constitute an adequate and independent state law ground barring review by inferior federal courts under the federal habeas corpus statute. It is now clear that the interest in achieving finality in criminal proceedings is henceforth to be valued less highly than the interest in assuring that no individual is deprived of life or liberty in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, 1962 Term, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 140 (1963). Only one who has deliberately by-passed the orderly procedure of the state courts may be held to have forfeited his state court remedies, Fay v. Noia, supra, 372 U.S. at 438, 83 S.Ct. 822, and even if a deliberate by-pass is found, the district court still has the power to grant habeas corpus. 34 Unquestionably, Wilson exercised his intelligent, rational choice not to appeal. Even now we cannot say that the decision was an unwise one. 7 But we do say, because we cannot significantly distinguish Wilson's situation from that of Noia, 8 that such an intelligent choice is not a deliberate by-passing of the state court system which ought to be treated as a waiver of the alleged constitutional defects in his trial. 35 Even so, we think Wilson's failure to appeal supports our separate conclusions (supra) that he effectively waived the right to object to the incriminating statement and the seized evidence by failing to make timely objection during the trial. 36 Having considered all of the petitioner's contentions of constitutional invalidity of his trial, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 37 Affirmed.