Opinion ID: 1645991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Due process at petitioner's hearing.

Text: However, petitioner contends that he was denied a meaningful hearing prior to his commitment for incompetency to stand trial and was, therefore, deprived of his due process rights. The record of the hearing, wherein petitioner was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to Central State Hospital, indicates that the district attorney challenged whether petitioner was competent to proceed. The psychiatric report was introduced into evidence and contested by neither petitioner's attorney nor the district attorney. On the basis of this report the trial court found petitioner unfit to proceed with the trial. The record does indicate that the petitioner did vigorously object to the report and demanded to be tried on the merits. This hearing was conducted in substantial compliance with sec. 971.14 (4), Stats., which provides: (4) The defendant's competency to proceed shall be summarily determined by the court. If neither the district attorney nor the counsel for the defendant contest the finding of the report filed pursuant to sub. (2) [a medical diagnosis of the defendant's mental condition], the court may make the determination on the basis of such report. If the finding is contested, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue. This subsection has been substantially the same since it was first adopted in 1878. [19] The procedure prescribed by sec. 971.14 (4), Stats., ignores any objections which the party alleged to be incompetent may have to the medical report. Only the district attorney and petitioner's counsel may contest the report and thereby bring about a fuller hearing on the merits of the competency issue. Underlying the statutory terms which permit the ignoring of an allegedly incompetent person's objections to the psychiatric report is undoubtedly the feeling that such a person cannot be the master of his own pleadings. [20] The difficulty with this probably accurate estimation, however, lies in its denial of a full hearing to those persons who do not feel they are incompetent. Pursuant to sec. 971.14 (4), the trial court summarily determines an accused's competency to proceed wherever the psychiatric report is not challenged. We conclude that this summary hearing where a psychiatric report is unchallenged is insufficient to meet the meaningful hearing requirements of the due process clause. It is insufficient because it provides an alleged incompetent with none of the procedural safeguards assuring an accurate adjudication of incompetency. While it may not often happen that one alleged to be incompetent to stand trial will object to the medical report, the due process clause requires a meaningful hearing where such an objection is made. [21] Certain essentials are required to provide a meaningful hearing. These include the right to an attorney; notice of the hearing which must be promptly held; the right to introduce evidence contradicting the medical report; sworn testimony; and beyond a reasonable doubt as the quantum of proof necessary for the incompetency determination. This court has previously construed deficient statutes to include constitutionally required provisions. In Huebner v. State , a hearing on the necessity of specialized treatment under the Sex Crimes Act was judicially mandated. [22] In State ex rel. Garner v. Gray a hearing similar to that required in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act was judicially mandated to save the Uniform Detainer Act. [23] So here it is our interpretation that under sec. 971.14, Stats., a meaningful hearing must be afforded all criminally accused persons alleged to be mentally incompetent to stand trial who contest the validity of a psychiatric report regarding their mental condition. The minimal essentials of such a hearing must be provided as indicated in order to satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.