Opinion ID: 2211822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: competency determinations in general

Text: [1-3] ¶ 26. We begin by addressing the purpose of competency determinations. Competence to stand trial is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-72 (1975). Anglo-American law long has recognized that incompetent defendants cannot be compelled to stand trial. [5] [O]nly where a defendant is mentally competent will he be able to exercise effectively the rights which this society extends to persons charged with committing a crime. State ex rel. Matalik v. Schubert, 57 Wis. 2d 315, 322, 204 N.W.2d 13 (1973) (internal quotations omitted). Criminal prosecutions of incompetent defendants impinge on at least two principles of fundamental fairness. First, a person should not be tried in absentia. Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d 214 at 221 (citation omitted). Although an incompetent defendant physically may be present in the courtroom, in reality he or she may not be able to participate in the defense. [6] Drope, 420 U.S. at 171. Second, an incompetent person may lack the ability to be informed about the charges and to confront the accuser. Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d at 221; Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 357 n.8 (1996). [4] ¶ 27. Defendants who are tried and convicted while legally incompetent are deprived of a due process right to a fair trial. Drope 420 U.S. at 172; Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 385 (1966). Consequently, both federal and state courts permit the suspension of a criminal proceeding against an incompetent accused person. Matalik, 57 Wis. 2d at 321-22. Under federal case law, the due process test for determining competency considers whether the defendant: (1) has sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; and (2) has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam). Thus, a defendant is incompetent if he or she lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings, to consult with counsel, and to assist in the preparation of his or her defense. Drope, 420 U.S. at 171. [5] ¶ 28. In Wisconsin, the trial of an incompetent defendant also violates state law. [7] Wisconsin Stat. § 971.13(1) codifies the due process test set forth in Dusky, providing that, No person who lacks substantial mental capacity to understand the proceedings or assist in his or her defense may be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures. See Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d at 222. This two-part understand-and-assist test constitutes the core of the competency-to-stand-trial analysis. [6] ¶ 29. Wisconsin Stat. § 971.14 amplifies the basic rule of the understand-and-assist test by setting forth the procedures for a competency determination. A court shall proceed under [the provisions of § 971.14] whenever there is reason to doubt a defendant's competency to proceed. Wis. Stat. § 971.14(1). A reason to doubt competency can arise from the defendant's demeanor in the courtroom, colloquies with the court, or by a motion from either party. State v. Debra A.E., 188 Wis. 2d 111, 131, 523 N.W.2d 727 (1994); see also State v. Johnson, 133 Wis. 2d 207, 220, 395 N.W.2d 176 (1986) (defense counsel must raise issue of competency when reason to doubt competency arises). [7, 8] ¶ 30. Once such doubt exists, Wis. Stat. § 971.14(2) requires the circuit court to appoint one or more examiners to perform a competency examination. See State v. McKnight, 65 Wis. 2d 582, 594, 223 N.W.2d 550 (1974). An examiner reports to the court his or her findings regarding the defendant's present mental capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in his or her defense. Wis. Stat. § 971.14(3). If the district attorney, the defendant, and defense counsel waive the opportunity to present evidence beyond the examiner's report, the court makes its competency determination. Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b). Absent a waiver, the circuit court conducts a competency hearing. Id. The court must find the defendant incompetent unless the State can prove, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, that the defendant is competent. Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b); Garfoot, 207 Wis. 2d at 221-22. [9-11] ¶ 31. Competency to stand trial constitutes a judicial inquiry, not a medical determination. Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1981, § 971.13(1), Stats. Requiring that a criminal defendant be competent has a modest aim: It seeks to ensure that he has the capacity to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 402 (1993). A court must determine whether the defendant can understand the proceedings and assist counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. Debra A.E., 188 Wis. 2d at 126. Although a defendant may have a history of psychiatric illness, a medical condition does not necessarily render the defendant incompetent to stand trial. State ex rel. Haskins v. County Court of Dodge County, 62 Wis. 2d 250, 264-65, 214 N.W.2d 575 (1974). To determine legal competency, the court considers a defendant's present mental capacity to understand and assist at the time of the proceedings. Wis. Stat. § 971.14(3)(c); McKnight, 65 Wis. 2d at 595.