Opinion ID: 1589788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Competency evaluation

Text: ¶ 64. With regard to Goff's claim that the trial court should have ordered a mental-competency evaluation and conducted a competency hearing, we find that the facts of this case did not warrant either. ¶ 65. Rule 9.06 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice provides in pertinent part: If before or during trial the court, of its own motion or upon motion of an attorney, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the court shall order the defendant to submit to a mental examination by some competent psychiatrist selected by the court in accordance with § 99-13-11 of the Mississippi Code Annotated of 1972. After the examination the court shall conduct a hearing to determine if the defendant is competent to stand trial. After hearing all the evidence, the court shall weigh the evidence and make a determination of whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. If the court finds that the defendant is competent to stand trial, then the court shall make the finding a matter of record and the case will then proceed to trial. Miss. Unif. Cir. & Cty. R. 9.06. ¶ 66. What constitutes reasonable ground to believe that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge. See Cox v. State, 793 So.2d 591, 597 (Miss.2001) citing Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1248 (Miss.1993), ( overruled on other grounds ). [22] The pertinent question is whether the trial judge receive[d] information which, objectively considered, should reasonably have raised a doubt about defendant's competence and alerted him to the possibility that the defendant could neither understand the proceedings, appreciate their significance, nor rationally aid his attorney in his defense? Conner v. State, 632 So.2d at 1248 (citing Lokos v. Capps, 625 F.2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir.1980)). ¶ 67. On January 21, 2005, Goff's attorneys filed a motion for a court-ordered mental examination of defendant. The motion stated: The attorney for the defendant in this case moves this Court to order a mental examination of defendant to be conducted at such time or times as the Court may direct, by qualified mental health professionals to determine: (1) The defendant's present mental condition and competency to stand trial; and; (2) The mental condition of the defendant at the time of the offense, and that the prosecution of this case be stayed depending the outcome of such examination. As attorney for defendant, I question the defendant's competency to stand trial and believe that it is essential for a mental examination to be conducted in advance of the trial because: (1) During the course of the investigation for this offense, undersigned counsel has come to believe that defendant has a history of mental illness and that he has been treated by mental health professionals while incarcerated in the State of Alabama. (2) The defendant has engaged in bazaar [sic] behavior during the past several years; (3) No mental health clinician has seen the defendant in over six months, during which time the defendant has been confined in the George County, Mississippi Jail. ¶ 68. On April 7, 2005, the court heard various motions brought by Goff. Goff testified at this hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for Goff, in the presence of the State, requested that an ex parte conference be held regarding a previously-filed motion for a court-ordered mental evaluation. During this ex parte conference, [23] counsel for Goff stated that the horrific nature of the crime prompted him to request the mental examination: BY COUNSEL FOR GOFF (DEEN): And when I came over here at first to represent him, I told him, due to the horrendousness of the allegation, that we ought to look into some type of maybe not guilty by reason of insanity or some type of looking into his competency at the time the event was done. ¶ 69. During the conference, counsel informed the trial court that Goff was a difficult client, that Goff was a child of incest, and that Goff had suffered psychotic episodes. Conversely, counsel also said that he had no trouble communicating with Goff. At the conclusion of this conference, defense counsel amended the previous request for a mental evaluation for the purposes of determining whether Goff was competent to stand trial, so that the requested evaluation was for mitigation purposes only. ¶ 70. At a second pretrial hearing on April 25, 2005, counsel further explained that he was no longer requesting a mental evaluation for the defendant. Counsel stated that between the filing of the motion on January 21, 2005, and the hearing on April 7, 2005, he could find no independent background of Mr. Goff where he would have had any psychiatric care or psychologist care or any indication that he would not be competent to stand trial or that he was legally insane at the time of the offense. According to counsel, Goff had been able to assist counsel in his preparation of the defense, Goff had an appreciation of the situation he was in, and the trouble that counsel had communicating with Goff was no different than that with any other client who is under substantial stress. ¶ 71. During the April 25, 2005, hearing, the trial court granted Goff's previous request for funds for the purpose of securing a mental-health expert to testify during the penalty phase. At the conclusion of this hearing, in commenting on the issue of Goff's competency, the trial judge stated: It was my observation at the hearings conducted April 7th ..., I did not observe or perceive any untoward conduct on the part of the defendant. He certainly appeared to me to appreciate the nature of the proceedings. He was able to proceed and testify at that hearing, and his responses to the questions that were asked were appropriate and responsive. I didn't see any basis for the Court on its own, sua sponte, bringing up, you know, having a hearing conducted or an examination conducted. [24] ¶ 72. The trial court did not err in failing to order a mental-competency evaluation or failing to conduct a competency hearing, and Goff's argument is without merit.