Opinion ID: 2632907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Defendant's Competency

Text: Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's ruling that he was competent to stand trial. The court based its ruling on the testimony and report of Dr. Charles Schaffer, one of the two court-appointed psychiatrists, who examined defendant and concluded that defendant was competent. Defendant argues that Dr. Schaffer's testimony was fatally flawed in several respects. For the reasons explained below, we disagree. Defendant asserts that although Dr. Schaffer concluded that defendant was not incompetent as a result of a psychiatric disorder, he never considered whether defendant was incompetent as a result of his seizure disorder, which is not a psychiatric disorder but a developmental disability. According to defendant, a competency inquiry under section 1369 involves two distinct questions: (1) whether the accused is incompetent as a result of a psychiatric disorder, and (2) whether the accused is incompetent as a result of a developmental disability. To the contrary, these are not two separate questions, but one: whether, based on a combination of all factors, including both psychiatric disorders and developmental disabilities, the defendant is competent to stand trial. Defendant bases his argument that Dr. Schaffer considered only his psychiatric disorders on one sentence in Dr. Schaffer's 38-page report: Dr. Schaffer's conclusion that [t]here is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Leonard is unable to assist his counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner as a result of a psychiatric disorder. But the rest of Dr. Schaffer's report and his testimony at the competency trial demonstrate that Dr. Schaffer considered not only defendant's psychiatric disorder, but also his seizure disorder, when he concluded that defendant was competent. Defendant contends that Dr. Schaffer based his competency determination on the mistaken belief that defendant was incompetent only if (1) he could not understood the nature of the proceedings and (2) he was unable to assist defense counsel in a rational manner, whereas a defendant is incompetent if either of these statements are true. (§ 1369.) Although Dr. Schaffer initially misstated the statutory test, in response to cross-examination by defense counsel he corrected himself, thereby demonstrating an accurate understanding of the correct legal standard. Dr. Schaffer's report stated that defendant was sufficiently able to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that [defendant] is unable to assist his counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.... (Italics added.) Based on the italicized language, defendant claims that Dr. Schaffer never actually decided whether defendant could rationally assist his attorneys. Rather, he asserts, Dr. Schaffer believed defendant had the burden of proving to Dr. Schaffer that he was unable to do so, and Dr. Schaffer found defendant competent because he had not satisfied this burden. As defendant points out, although he had the burden of proving his incompetence to the trier of fact (§ 1369, subd. (f)), he did not have the burden of proving it to Dr. Schaffer. Dr. Schaffer testified, however, that defendant had told him that he had a positive relationship with defense attorney Caroline Lang, that he trusted her, that he could communicate with her, and that he considered her a competent attorney. Dr. Schaffer also mentioned that defendant appeared to interact appropriately with his attorneys during the competency hearing itself. Viewing Dr. Schaffer's testimony as a whole, we conclude that he based his determination that defendant could cooperate with his attorneys on his interview with, and observations of, defendant, not on a misguided view of the burden of proof. Defendant contends that Dr. Schaffer really was not sure whether [defendant] was competent and his responses on all the most critical questions were completely equivocal. We disagree. Although Dr. Schaffer expressed uncertainty as to whether defendant had experienced religious hallucinations and said it wasn't easy to try to assess whether defendant's behavior resulted from a severe delusional disturbance driven by a psychiatric disorder or whether he was merely very religious, he unequivocally expressed his view that defendant is competent to stand trial. For all of these reasons, Dr. Schaffer's testimony and report provide substantial evidence supporting the trial court's competency determination.