Opinion ID: 1160457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Defendant's Testimony: Mental Competence to Stand Trial

Text: Defendant contends that the superior court erred by failing to order a hearing under Penal Code section 1367 et seq., sua sponte, in order to determine whether he was mentally incompetent to stand trial, that is, whether, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, he was unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner (Pen. Code, § 1367, subd. (a)). We disagree. A trial court is not under a duty to order a hearing on a defendant's mental incompetence to stand trial, in the absence of a request, unless it has been presented with substantial evidence of mental incompetence, i.e., evidence that raises a reasonable doubt on the issue. ( People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1163.) The superior court was not presented with any such evidence whatsoever. Defendant did not display any mental disorder or developmental disability of any kind. Neither did he reveal any inability to understand the criminal proceedings or to give his assistance to defense counsel. The most that can be said is that, because of anger and other emotions, he was sometimes unwilling to participate. To say that, however, is to say too little.