Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Finding of Competence Reversed

Text: ¶ 14 The trial court rejected the undisputed evidence and found that Defendant was competent. The order provided, in part, While the defendant may appear to have some signs of mental illness, his behavior in relation to defense counsel is not uncommon among defendants, in general, and with defense attorneys who have personality traits similar to lead defense counsel's. .... Much of the defendant's conduct amounts to malingering. The Court finds the defendant is competent to stand trial. ¶15 Defendant filed a petition for special action in Division Two of the Court of Appeals. [2] On May 12, 1993, the court of appeals vacated the trial court's finding of competence because The record before us contains no reasonable evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that [Defendant] was competent when the various experts last examined him. We recognize that in evaluating the evidence the trial court is not bound by the opinions of experts. However, there must be some basis for rejecting the testimony of experts, such as observations made by the court of the defendant or, perhaps, testimony of counsel. Here, the experts, including psychologist Catherine Boyer who testified on behalf of the court clinic, unanimously concluded that petitioner was unable to assist his counsel because of his paranoia. We can find no reasonable evidence to support a rejection of the opinions of four experts, the only experts who testified. There is no reasonable evidence to support the court's finding that petitioner is malingering. That defense counsel may have violated the court's orders in this matter or acted in an inappropriate, perhaps unethical manner, is not relevant to a determination under Rule 11. (Citations omitted.) The court of appeals also noted that the State's response to the petition for special action does not dispute petitioner's contention that the evidence unequivocally established petitioner's incompetency when last examined. ¶ 16 On remand, the trial court committed Defendant to the Maricopa County Department of Health Services to be restored to competence. The court also ruled that, at trial, each side would be limited to one expert witness on the issue of sanity. In moving for reconsideration of this ruling, defense counsel argued, The need for more than one expert is especially true given the prosecution's apparent tactic. The prosecution will not retain, or call an expert, to contradict Dr. Potts. Rather, the prosecution will bash psychiatry and psychology as not being a science, and as not being reliable evidence upon which to base an acquittal or a conviction for a lesser offense. The trial court denied the motion, but later ordered that Defendant could call two experts, namely, one mental health expert to testify about those matters involving psychiatric, psychological and malingering issues and a medical expert on physical trauma as it relates in general to organic brain disorders. The propriety of this order is not before us.