Opinion ID: 1811226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nunc Pro Tunc Hearing

Text: In certain instances, a nunc pro tunc hearing on the issue of competency is appropriate if a meaningful inquiry into the defendant's competency may still be had. Snyder at 854. In such cases, the trial court is again vested with the discretion of making this decision as it is in the best position to do so. Id. at 855. This determination must be decided on a case-by-case basis, under the guidance of Nomey, Snyder, and their progeny. Id. The state bears the burden in the nunc pro tunc hearing to provide sufficient evidence for the court to make a rational decision. Id. Thus, we must determine first if a meaningful retrospective competency hearing can be held in the instant case or whether the only option to remedy the situation is nullification. The allowance of a determination nunc pro tunc in cases such as these was first recognized in State v. Snyder . In Snyder, the record gave no basis upon which a reviewing court could determine if the trial court properly inquired into the defendant's competence. Factors which a court may consider to conduct a proper inquiry are known as the Bennett factors and include: [W]hether [t]he [defendant] is able to recall and relate facts pertaining to his actions and whereabouts at certain times; whether he is able to assist counsel in locating and examining relevant witnesses; whether he is able to maintain a consistent defense; whether he is able to listen to the testimony of witnesses and inform his lawyer of any distortions or misstatements; whether he has the ability to make simple decisions in response to well-explained alternatives; whether, if necessary to defense strategy, he is capable of testifying in his own defense; and to what extent, if any, his mental condition is apt to deteriorate under the stress of trial. State v. Bennett, 345 So.2d 1129, 1137 (La. 1977). This court, in reviewing the record in Snyder, found no evidence that the trial court considered any of the Bennett factors after defendant's competency was raised. However, in Snyder, there was considerable evidence, both psychiatric and lay testimony, regarding the defendant's state of mind. In contrast, there was no affirmative evidence that the trial judge in the instant case conducted any investigation into defense allegations other than signing the order for the appointment of a psychiatrist. In State v. Franks, 391 So.2d 1133 (La. 1980), State v. Berry, 391 So.2d 406 (La. 1980), and State v. Hicks, 286 So.2d 331, 333 (La.1973), the trial courts granted the defendants psychiatric examinations, which fell short of a request for a full-blown sanity commission, and ruled on the merits of whether a reasonable ground existed for appointment of a sanity commission. The order in the instant case was never seen to fruition as in Franks, Berry, and Hicks. We find the rule of Article 642 is broad enough to encompass situations in which the trial court may appoint a mental health expert (such as Franks and Berry ) as well as those occasions in which the court must appoint a sanity commission because reasonable grounds exist for doubting the defendant's competency. Having signed the motion, the court clearly erred as a matter of law under La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 642 by proceeding to trial without making any assessment of defendant's capacity to proceed. Finding that the prosecution of the instant case should have been stayed to properly determine defendant's capacity, we now turn to a determination of whether the exception to nullification applies in this case. In order for the exception to nullification to be applicable, we must find that a meaningful retrospective determination of competence can now be made. The evidence is so scant that the district court correctly ruled that it could not cure the error by ordering a nunc pro tunc determination because, in the instant case, we can only guess from the scant evidence in the record that the trial judge found a bona fide issue regarding defendant's Motion for Psychiatric Evaluation. We agree with the defendant's argument that a meaningful determination of defendant's competence cannot now be made.