Opinion ID: 1667377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to order additional competency examination

Text: Mr. Bowen was adjudicated competent to stand trial on July 31, 1992. The trial did not begin until December 7, 1993. During the trial Mr. Bowen testified as several different alters or personalities. His counsel sought, and was often granted time to explain matters to the personality testifying or hearing the testimony of others. An accused is presumed competent to stand trial, and the burden of proving incompetence is on the accused. Williams v. State, 320 Ark. 67, 894 S.W.2d 923 (1995). Once he was determined to be competent, Mr. Bowen once again had the burden of proving incompetency. In addition to the conclusion that Mr. Bowen's acceptance of his personality disorder rendered him competent, the Trial Court also had before it the testimony of Dr. Hall, who stated that although Mr. Bowen still suffered from MPD, his condition could be managed. Moreover, the record indicates that Mr. Bowen performed well on examinations that tested his ability to understand the legal system. In addition, we find no evidence that Mr. Bowen was prejudiced by his mental condition in his or his counsel's conduct of the trial. Under these circumstances, we hold there was no error in refusing a further mental examination.