Opinion ID: 6353400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: Competency [3-7] We turn first to Surber’s first assignment of error: The district court erred in finding him competent to stand trial. A person is competent to plead or stand trial if he or she has the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him or her, to comprehend his or her own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense. 3 The competency standard includes both (1) whether the defend­ ant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him or her and (2) whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. 4 There are no fixed or immutable signs of incompetence, and a defendant can meet the modest aim of legal competency, despite paranoia, emotional disorders, unstable mental conditions, and suicidal tendencies. 5 The question of competency to stand trial is one of fact to be determined by the district court. 6 A court’s decision regarding competency will not be disturbed absent insufficient evidence to support that finding. 7 1 State v. Jenkins, 303 Neb. 676, 931 N.W.2d 851 (2019). 2 State v. Said, 306 Neb. 314, 945 N.W.2d 152 (2020). 3 State v. Jenkins, supra note 1. 4 Id. 5 State v. Lang, 305 Neb. 726, 942 N.W.2d 388 (2020). 6 Id. 7 See State v. Jenkins, supra note 1. - 331 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SURBER Cite as 311 Neb. 320 As the record demonstrates, Surber’s competency was at issue throughout these proceedings. After variously being found not competent, then competent, and being treated by both the Department of Correctional Services and LRC, Surber was ultimately found competent and a trial date was set. But just days before the trial, Surber’s counsel once again sought a competency evaluation, which was granted. Hartmann conducted that evaluation. We note that Hartmann’s evaluation also considered whether Surber was qualified to represent himself, as that had been at issue during proceedings occurring around the same time, although it is not at issue in this appeal. In his evaluation, done virtually, Hartmann—who had previously indicated that Surber was malingering—opined that presently Surber was not malingering, and further concluded: This man has sufficient mental capacity to appreciate his presence in relation to time, place, and things and possesses the elementary mental processes such that he understands that he is in a court of law charged with criminal offenses. However, his present mental functioning appears to be at least in part at the delusional level . . . . He is not considered able to consult with and assist counsel in preparation of his defense. As such, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, I consider this man not to have the capacity to stand trial and represent himself without competent counsel. The court noted Hartmann’s evaluation and found it helpful, but ultimately concluded Surber was competent to stand trial. We affirm this conclusion. In this case, during Hartmann’s evaluation, he found Surber to be incompetent to stand trial, not because he thought Surber did not understand the proceedings, but because he felt that Surber did not meet the second criteria: having the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. - 332 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SURBER Cite as 311 Neb. 320 The district court, having the benefit of many competency evaluations and treatment records, disagreed with this assessment, noting that the court’s own observations of Surber showed an individual “conversing with both of his appointed attorneys during Dr. Hartmann’s testimony.” The court further noted that the three “were able to have exchanges without it disrupting the proceedings” and that Surber was “quite active in following the exchanges . . . and the notes that they were taking.” The court continued: Surber may not completely trust his counsel, and the basis of his feelings may not be based in fact (i.e. his belief that counsel destroyed evidence), and his feelings may even be delusional, as Dr. Hartmann alleges in his report. But what the Court observed during the competency hearing was an accused who seemed to be following the proceedings and communicating with counsel. [8,9] Surber’s conduct during this hearing is relevant to the question of whether he was competent, particularly given the nature of his identified incompetency. Surber’s behavior suggests that he had control over his actions. Several courts have found that a defendant with voluntary control to ­cooperate is not incompetent simply because he or she refused to cooperate, 8 refused to communicate with defense counsel, 9 or could not get along with or disapproved of defense counsel. 10 Even identifying with bizarre legal theories, whether or not sincerely held, does not automatically suggest incompetence. 11 The ultimate fact finder in this case was the district court. We have been directed to no authority, nor has our own research revealed authority, requiring a district court to adopt 8 U.S. v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2011). 9 U.S. v. Kiderlen, 569 F.3d 358 (8th Cir. 2009). 10 U.S. v. Miller, 531 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2008). 11 U.S. v. Jonassen, 759 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2014). - 333 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SURBER Cite as 311 Neb. 320 the opinion of an expert in such matters. 12 The observations of the district court, along with the prior evidence of malingering by Surber, provide sufficient evidence to support the district court’s conclusion that Surber was competent to stand trial, regardless of the conclusions on competency reached by Hartmann. There is no merit to Surber’s first assignment of error. Motion to Suppress At issue on appeal is (1) whether the district court erred when it found that the consent, automobile, and emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement were met such as to allow the admittance of the severed leg and arm found in the trunk of the Impala and (2) whether the plain view doctrine allowed the admission of the bloodied clothes found in the Galvan garage and the bloodied boots found in the Galvan ­residence. In addition, Surber challenges a second warrant authorizing searches of the Impala and the Yukon because those warrants were authorized with reference to the prior claimed unlawful searches of the Impala and the Galvan residence. [10] Surber testified to the fact that he dismembered Kubik’s body and disposed of an arm and a leg in the trunk of the Impala. He further testified that the brown boots found in the Galvan residence were his boots and were likely to have blood on them as he was wearing them when he dismembered Kubik. As such, we conclude that Surber has waived any argument he has with respect to this evidence on appeal. The introduction of evidence by the defense waives any objection to the earlier introduction of evidence on the same subject by the State. 13 12 Cf. 31A Am. Jur. 2d Expert and Opinion Evidence § 135 (2012); 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 100 (2016); 22A C.J.S. Criminal Procedure and Rights of Accused § 518 (2016); and 32 C.J.S. Evidence §§ 871, 937, 946, and 970 (2020) (all collecting cases). 13 State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187, 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989). - 334 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SURBER Cite as 311 Neb. 320 [11-13] Surber did not testify regarding the bloodied clothes found in the garage. But to the extent that those clothes ought to have been suppressed, we find that any error in failing to do so is harmless. To conduct harmless error review, we look to the entire record and view the erroneously admitted evidence relative to the rest of the untainted, relevant evidence of guilt. 14 Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but, rather, whether the actual guilty verdict rendered in the questioned trial was surely unattributable to the error. 15 Erroneous admission of evidence is harmless error and does not require reversal if the evidence is cumulative and other relevant evidence, properly admitted, supports the finding by the trier of fact. 16 Overwhelming evidence of guilt can be considered in determining whether the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error, but overwhelming evidence of guilt is not alone sufficient to find the erroneous admission of evidence harmless. 17 Significantly, Surber testified in some detail to the events surrounding Kubik’s death. While Surber argues that he acted in self-defense, the bloodied clothes he seeks to suppress were not probative of his defense of self-defense, but instead were probative as to who caused Kubik’s death. Between Surber’s testimony that he was responsible for Kubik’s death and the myriad other evidence suggesting that Surber was responsible, we hold that the guilty verdicts in this case were unattributable to any erroneous admission of the bloodied clothes found in Galvan’s garage. 14 State v. Said, supra note 2. 15 State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801, 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). 16 Id. 17 See, e.g., State v. Jennings, 305 Neb. 809, 942 N.W.2d 753 (2020). - 335 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SURBER Cite as 311 Neb. 320 Finally, we briefly note that with respect to the Yukon, the State did not offer at trial any of the evidence found in the search of the Yukon. As such, we do not need to address those arguments on appeal. There is no merit to Surber’s second and third assignments of error.