Opinion ID: 1309837
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Psychiatric Reports

Text: Dr. Faerstein submitted his report on November 24, 1980, and reached the following conclusions regarding defendant's present mental condition: 1. The defendant is presently not competent to stand trial. The defendant does not understand the nature and purpose of the legal proceedings, and he is unable to cooperate in a rational manner with counsel in presenting a defense. 2. The defendant is presently psychotic.... [H]e is so impaired at the present time that it is not possible to discuss the instant offenses adequately to reach a conclusion with reasonable medical certainty concerning his mental state and criminal responsibility at the time of the commission of the instant offenses.
Defendant was examined by Dr. Hofman on December 2, 1980, approximately three weeks after Dr. Faerstein's examination. Dr. Hofman expressed the opinion that [defendant] is able to understand the nature and the purpose of the proceedings against him and to cooperate with counsel in presenting a defense.... The doctor noted, however, that defendant was deeply entrenched in a delusional system with some improvement in that he has been on medication.
The trial court, at defendant's request, appointed a third psychiatrist, Dr. Davis, to examine defendant. In a report dated December 30, 1980, Dr. Davis concluded that defendant suffered from schizophrenia, paranoid type, but that he was in remission because of medication given at the Los Angeles County jail hospital. Dr. Davis opined that defendant was competent to stand trial although he felt defendant was insane at the time he committed the offenses, he should be committed to a state hospital, and that defendant is a danger to the safety of others.
After Dr. Davis submitted his psychiatric report, defendant's case was called for trial as scheduled on January 6, 1981. Defense counsel requested a continuance to January 27, 1981, in order to discuss some matters with the assigned prosecutor who was not then in court. The trial court granted the continuance. On January 27, 1981, the court appointed two additional psychiatrists to examine defendant: Drs. Moskowitz and Stalberg. In its Letter of Psychiatric Appointment, the court specifically requested both doctors to make section 1368 findings (i.e., to determine whether defendant was presently able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against him and whether defendant was presently able to cooperate in a rational manner with counsel in presenting a defense). Accordingly, we must assume that as of this time the issue of defendant's competency had not yet been resolved by the court.
Dr. Moskowitz submitted his report to the court on February 14, 1981. His examination revealed that defendant suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. Dr. Moskowitz concluded that defendant has not fully recovered his sanity, and that [h]e cannot cooperate in a rational manner with counsel in preparing a defense.
On February 16, 1981, Dr. Stalberg reported that defendant was competent to stand trial. Specifically, Dr. Stalberg opined that defendant [s]howed none of the bizarre, psychotic behavior, thinking or emotions that he has evidenced in past examinations and at his preliminary hearing. He was able to rationally describe the functioning of the court, stating that `At first I had a Public Defender for my pretrial arraignment and preliminary hearing.' He stated that now he has privately retained counsel, and he presumes his trial will begin upon his next day in court. Finally, Dr. Stalberg attempted to account for the conflicting psychiatric reports by reasoning, it appears that Dr. Faerstein examined the defendant early in the defendant's treatment, on 11-12-80, when the antipsychotic medication had not yet taken effect and [defendant] was very psychotic. By the time of the examinations of Drs. Hofman and Davis, in early and late December, 1980, the medication had effectively reduced [defendant's] psychotic thinking to render him competent to stand trial. Dr. Stalberg's evaluation, however, fails to account for Dr. Moskowitz's incompetency finding. Both the People and defendant acknowledge that although the trial court and counsel initially had anticipated a hearing on the competency issue, no such hearing was ever held, and the issue was never resolved on the record. The record reveals that the court never commented on the reports of the appointed psychiatrists regarding defendant's competency, nor did the court ever again mention the ordered section 1368 hearing or its earlier express finding of a doubt as to defendant's competency. The proceedings continued to trial without any objection from defense counsel.