Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court's Failure to Initiate Competency Proceedings

Text: During presentation of the defense case at the sanity phase, Dr. Alfred Owre, Jr., a psychiatrist, testified that he had examined defendant briefly in 1977 in prison to determine defendant's parole suitability and had observed no evidence of schizophrenia at that time. Dr. Owre then testified that seeing defendant across the courtroom, it appeared defendant was out of touch with reality, that he was suffering from chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia, and that he appeared to be hallucinating. Defendant claims the trial court, after hearing this testimony, should have halted the sanity hearing and initiated competency proceedings. The court's failure to do so, defendant argues, violated several of his rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution. In addition, defendant contends his defense counsel's opposition to a competency hearing constituted ineffective assistance under the state and federal Constitutions. We disagree. The law in this area is settled. As noted, ante, trial of an incompetent criminal defendant violates his or her right to due process. ( Medina v. California, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 448, 112 S.Ct. 2572; People v. Hale, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 539, 244 Cal.Rptr. 114, 749 P.2d 769.) Section 1367, subdivision (a) states that a defendant is mentally incompetent . . . if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, [he] is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner. `When the accused presents substantial evidence of incompetence, due process requires that the trial court conduct a full competency hearing. [Citation.] Evidence is substantial if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's competence to stand trial.' ( People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 726, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 838 P.2d 729.) The trial judge's ruling regarding whether a competency hearing is required should be given great deference. `An appellate court is in no position to appraise a defendant's conduct in the trial court as indicating insanity, a calculated attempt to feign insanity and delay the proceedings, or sheer temper.' ( Id. at p. 727, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 838 P.2d 729, quoting People v. Merkouris (1959) 52 Cal.2d 672, 679, 344 P.2d 1.) The evidence in this case of defendant's alleged incompetence falls far short of being substantial. Dr. Owre admitted his statements indicating his present belief defendant was incompetent came from his observations of defendant's in-court demeanor and not from any actual examination or testing of defendant. Dr. Owre also admitted he had not seen defendant in the hallway before the court session, smoking and conversing with his defense counsel, or seen defendant previously testifying for more than a day, coherently and responsively answering questions. The trial court concluded it had no doubt as to defendant's competency, stating: I just quite frankly don't believe that a doctor can from the witness stand, when he is not examining a patient or not even observing a person except secondarily to his testimony, can render an opinion like that on the witnesses stand. . . . Defense counsel seemed to agree, noting for the court that defendant had been examined by two psychiatrists and found competent. On this record, we find the trial court's conclusion that Dr. Owre's testimony was not substantial evidence establishing a doubt of defendant's competence is entitled to deference on appeal. (See People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1111, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1 [it was significant the expert witness had not actually examined the defendant].) Moreover, defendant fails to mention an important fact critically undermining his claim: the trial court had already declared a doubt as to defendant's competence at the time of the arraignment, suspended proceedings, and had defendant examined by two psychiatrists. The parties submitted the matter, and the trial court found defendant legally competent. Once a defendant has been found competent to stand trial, a second competency hearing is required only if the evidence discloses a substantial change of circumstances or new evidence is presented casting serious doubt on the validity of the prior finding of the defendant's competence. [Citations.] ( People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 734, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2.) Dr. Owre's brief observation regarding defendant's competence does not address whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that Dr. Owre's testimony did not raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's competence, and his testimony thus did not comprise substantial evidence of incompetence necessitating a hearing.