Opinion ID: 1169826
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence as to Defendant's Competence to Stand Trial

Text: (8) A defendant who is mentally incompetent cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment. (§ 1367, subd. (a); Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 378 [86 S.Ct. 836, 838, 15 L.Ed.2d 815].) A defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner. (§ 1367, subd. (a).) The defendant has the burden of proving incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 1369, subd. (f); People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 881-886 [274 Cal. Rptr. 849, 799 P.2d 1282].) (9a) Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict finding him competent to stand trial. Citing People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489 [174 Cal. Rptr. 684, 629 P.2d 485], defendant argues that a judgment of conviction must be reversed when there is persuasive and virtually uncontradicted evidence of a defendant's mental incompetence ( id. at p. 506). We agree. He then asserts that the evidence in this case, in which unanimous expert testimony was contradicted only by lay testimony, is persuasive and virtually uncontradicted evidence of mental incompetency. We disagree. (10) In reviewing a jury verdict that a defendant is mentally competent to stand trial, an appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the verdict and uphold the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 505.) Evidence is substantial if it is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. ( Ibid. ; People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 137 [70 Cal. Rptr. 193, 443 P.2d 777].) (9b) Here, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict finding defendant competent to stand trial. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the jury did not have to accept the opinion of experts. As we have observed in the past: Of course, the jury is not required to accept at face value a unanimity of expert opinion: `To hold otherwise would be in effect to substitute a trial by experts for a trial by jury....' ( People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 498, quoting People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 811 [40 Cal. Rptr. 271, 394 P.2d 959].) (11) The value of an expert's opinion depends upon the quality of the material on which the opinion is based and the reasoning used to arrive at the conclusion. ( Slaten v. State Bar (1988) 46 Cal.3d 48, 55 [249 Cal. Rptr. 289, 757 P.2d 1]; People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 498.) (9c) Here, both expert witnesses, Dr. Vicary and Dr. Coburn, based their opinions regarding defendant's competence to stand trial primarily on their interviews with defendant. They said that their opinions would be affected by evidence that defendant acts normally outside the setting of a psychiatric interview. Court Bailiff Allen and Deputy Sheriff Garcia testified to such behavior by defendant. Defendant's interview with Dr. Vicary lasted only 15 minutes; defendant refused to be interviewed by Dr. Coburn. In addition, both experts had reservations regarding their expressed views of defendant's incompetence. Dr. Vicary stated that it was possible that defendant could cooperate with his attorney if he wanted to do so. And Dr. Coburn said that his opinion that defendant was incompetent lacked a level of reasonable medical certainty. Also, defendant's conduct while he was representing himself supported a finding of mental competency: The written motions defendant prepared while representing himself were appropriate, and Deputy Sheriff Allen stated that defendant's oral presentation of his motions in court was coherent. In People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d 489, we reversed for insufficiency of evidence a jury's verdict finding the defendant in that case competent to stand trial. But Samuel is factually distinguishable from this case. In Samuel, five court-appointed psychiatrists, three psychologists, a medical doctor, a nurse, and three psychiatric technicians testified that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial. This testimony was supported by four psychiatric reports, and the prosecution's witnesses did not contradict any of the defense testimony. ( Id. at pp. 497-498.) Here, in contrast, only two experts testified regarding defendant's incompetence to stand trial. As set forth above, their opinions were tenuous, and they were undermined by the testimony of the prosecution's lay witnesses, Deputy Sheriff Rick Allen and Deputy Sheriff Louis Garcia, who testified to their observations of defendant during a two-to-three-year period. We conclude that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that defendant was competent to stand trial.