Opinion ID: 1750183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: competency ruling

Text: The Commonwealth's final argument is that the trial court erred in finding that Deanna was not competent to stand trial when both mental health experts opined that she was competent. `Incompetency to stand trial' means, as a result of mental condition, lack of capacity to appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against one or to participate rationally in one's own defense. KRS 504.060(4). [A] defendant is competent if he can consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. ... [A] competent defendant can make a reasoned choice among the alternatives available to him when confronted with such crucial questions as whether he should testify, waive a jury trial, cross-examine witnesses, put on a defense, etc. Bishop, 118 S.W.3d at 162-63 (quoting Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396-98, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 2685-86, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993)). The nature of the inquiry in a competency proceeding is: (1) whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent to provide his counsel with information necessary or relevant to constructing a defense; (2) whether he is able to comprehend the significance of the trial and his relation to it. The defendant must have an ability to confer intelligently, to testify coherently, and to follow the evidence presented. It is necessary that the defendant have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings. Bishop, 118 S.W.3d at 163 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Kentucky Criminal Law, § 5-4(b) p. 210 (Lexis 1998)). The trial court has a broad discretion in determining whether a defendant has the ability to participate rationally in his defense. Hopewell v. Commonwealth, 641 S.W.2d 744, 748 (Ky.1982). Although both Dr. Jefferson and Dr. Pack opined that Deanna was competent to stand trial, both experts agreed that Deanna was mildly mentally retarded and noted Deanna's severe mental limitations. Dr. Pack testified that Deanna was marginally competent, and that as a result of her cognitive impairments, Deanna would need a lot support during the trial proceedings. In particular, Dr. Pack noted that Deanna's problems processing information would make it difficult for her to assist her attorney, as she would not know what questions to ask and could not recognize a lie. Dr. Pack questioned Deanna's ability to keep up and understand what was going on during the trial. Dr. Pack also stated that the use of unfamiliar vocabulary would require a great deal of explanation during legal proceedings and that is was very likely that Deanna did not understand what happening at the competency hearing. In her written report, Dr. Pack made the following conclusions regarding Deanna's competency: Her cognitive deficits interfere with her ability to realistically consider the nature and defenses available to her and the potential outcomes of a trial. She has no concept of legal defense strategies or pleadings and is unable to intelligently evaluate any options that might be presented by her attorney.... Deanna has a limited factual knowledge of the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her. Her intellectual and language disabilities limit her ability to achieve a rational understanding of the proceedings. She may not efficiently or accurately follow trial events. She lacks the cognitive ability to quickly reason and make judgments regarding how and when to respond. Furthermore, Deanna is functionally illiterate (unable to read and write at a fourth grade level). As a consequence, she is unable to read and review any written evidence presented. Even Dr. Jefferson acknowledged that Deanna has a limited ability to understand new information and would have special needs during legal proceedings. Dr. Jefferson stated that in order for Deanna to go to trial, trial language would have to be simplified, the trial would have to move at a slower pace, attorneys would have to be patient, and the pressure placed on Deanna should be limited. Competency determinations are made based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. Thompson v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 22, 32 (Ky.2004). In light of all the evidence of Deanna's mental impairments and limitations, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Deanna incompetent to stand trial. See Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 586 S.W.2d 24 (Ky.1979), overruled on other grounds by Wellman v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 696 (Ky.1985). Notwithstanding the experts' conclusions that Deanna was competent or marginally competent to stand trial, there was substantial evidence presented of Deanna's inability to participate rationally in her own defense. See Thompson v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d at 33. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Bracken Circuit Court are affirmed. All sitting. MINTON, C.J.; CUNNINGHAM, NOBLE, and VENTERS, JJ., concur. SCOTT, J., concurs by separate opinion in which ABRAMSON, J., joins.