Opinion ID: 884196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial Competency Hearing

Text: On February 7, 1995, the District Court held a pre-trial hearing to determine the competency of Mary Jenkins. During Mary's testimony, the State attempted to introduce her letters to show that she could express herself and communicate with others. Appellant objected to admission of the letters on the basis of spousal privilege. The District Court responded: I am going to reserve my ruling on those letters. I prefer being able to determine her competency based on her testimony today rather than something she has written in the past. Later in the hearing, when Officer McCormack took the stand, the State again attempted to introduce Mary's letters, and Appellant again objected on the ground of spousal privilege. The following exchange then took place: [Court]: Okay. The spousal privilege does not apply because the letters are not being introduced for the truth of the matters contained in the letters. The letters would only be introduced to show that Mary [can] communicate. . . . [Lawrence's Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, before you consider the letters I would just like the record to reflect that I didn't see these letters until yesterday. . . . I would like the ability to reserve any objection and your review of the letters until such time as we have had a chance to look at them. [Court]: All right. I will go ahead and take a look at the letters and after you have looked at the letters we will meet in chambers and discuss the exhibit. The court took the matter under advisement and ended the hearing. Later that afternoon, in chambers, the court ruled that Mary was competent to testify. As to the letters, the court ruled: I don't feel the need to consider those letters and I am refusing the admission of those letters as to evidence. I decided I could rule on Mary's competence without those letters. On appeal, the State contends that no error occurred because the District Court never admitted the letters. The State argues that Appellant mistook the court's statement, The spousal privilege doesn't apply . . . as the court's ruling on the matter, when in fact, at the request of Appellant, the court took the matter under advisement. We agree with the State. The portion of the record set out above reveals that the District Court refused admission of the letters, as they were not needed in determining Mary's competency. Therefore, we conclude that because the letters were never admitted at the competency hearing, no error occurred.