Opinion ID: 1904040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court was in error when it found bridges competent to stand trial.

Text: ¶ 10. It is a denial of due process and contrary to public policy to try a defendant when it appears to the trial court that there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense. When the competency of a defendant to stand trial is raised, the trial court should conduct a hearing prior to the trial to determine whether there is a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense. If the trial court finds that there is not sufficient proof to show a probability that defendant is incapable of conducting a rational defense, he should make such finding a matter of record. The case may then proceed to trial on the merits. Emanuel v. State, 412 So.2d 1187, 1188-89 (Miss.1982). This Court may not overturn that finding unless that finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Id. The evidence must show more than a possibility that defendant is incompetent to stand trial. Id. ¶ 11. The trial court accepted Dr. Maggio as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry. Dr. Maggio thoroughly examined Bridges and testified at the competency hearing in detail that Bridges was competent to stand trial. Bridges offered no evidence to rebut Dr. Maggio's opinion. The trial court found that Bridges was competent to stand trial. There was sufficient evidence upon which the trial judge based his decision and that decision is not manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Therefore, this issue is without merit.