Opinion ID: 410418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Applicability of Pate v. Robinson

Text: 20 Due process requires that a defendant not be made to stand trial for a criminal charge unless he has a sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and possesses a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam). In Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), the Supreme Court delineated a separate procedural due process right to a hearing on competency to stand trial when there is evidence prior to or during trial which establishes a bona fide doubt of incompetency to stand trial. In Pate, the state trial court was presented with extensive evidence of Pate's alleged incompetency during trial. The state trial court, nevertheless, failed to hold a competency hearing although the Illinois statutory provision, the predecessor of the statutory provision in this case, required the trial court to conduct a hearing whenever the evidence raised a bona fide doubt as to a defendant's competence to stand trial. The Supreme Court found a denial of due process in the trial court's failure to hold a hearing during the trial. 383 U.S. at 385, 86 S.Ct. at 842. 21 The Supreme Court subsequently explained its holding in Pate in Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975): 22 In Pate v. Robinson, we held that the failure to observe procedures adequate to protect a defendant's right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial deprives him of his due process right to a fair trial. Although in Robinson we noted that Illinois jealously guard[ed] this right, we held that the failure of the state courts to invoke the statutory procedures deprived Robinson of the inquiry into the issue of his competence to stand trial to which, on the facts of the case, we concluded he was constitutionally entitled. The Court did not hold that the procedure prescribed by Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 38, Sec. 104-2 (1963), was constitutionally mandated, although central to its discussion was the conclusion that the statutory procedure, if followed, was constitutionally adequate. Nor did the Court prescribe a general standard with respect to the nature or quantum of evidence necessary to require resort to an adequate procedure. Rather, it noted that under the Illinois statute a hearing was required where the evidence raised a  'bona fide doubt'  as to a defendant's competence, and the Court concluded that the evidence introduced on Robinson's behalf entitled him to a hearing on this issue. 23 420 U.S. at 172-73, 95 S.Ct. at 904 (citations and footnote omitted, emphasis added). In brief, the Supreme Court in Pate concluded that procedural due process as well as the Illinois statute required a hearing on Robinson's competency to stand trial based on the extensive evidence of incompetency presented during his trial. 24 Neither of the parties has questioned the applicability of Pate to the facts of this case. There is some question, however, whether the procedural due process safeguard in Pate, which was intended to ensure the procedural fairness of a trial, must be provided when no evidence of incompetency is before the trial court until after the defendant has been tried and convicted. 25 Our concern is reinforced by the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Reese v. Wainwright, 600 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 487, 62 L.Ed.2d 410 (1979). The facts of Reese are strikingly analogous to the facts of the present case, with one exception to be noted below. In Reese, the defendant was found competent to stand trial in a pre-trial independent psychiatric examination. Earlier examinations had varied as to whether the defendant was competent. A hearing was held in the state court, and Reese was adjudged competent to stand trial. In the trial, Reese presented an insanity defense, but there was no evidence of any unusual behavior by Reese during the trial and Reese's counsel never claimed during trial that Reese was incompetent. On September 27, 1972, Reese was convicted and sentenced. Two weeks after the trial, Reese was examined by psychiatrists in a separate criminal proceeding and they determined that he was actively psychotic and not then fit to stand trial. One psychiatrist even surmised that he was not competent during the recently completed trial. On October 24, 1972 the trial court denied a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence and no competency hearing was held. Id. at 1089. Despite the post-trial evidence of incompetency, the Fifth Circuit on habeas review held that the procedural requirement of Pate applied to pre-trial and trial proceedings only. The court stated that [a] Pate violation is a procedural error by the trial court and it may occur only in the time frame encompassed by the trial itself and immediately related proceedings. Id. at 1093. 26 Although in Reese the trial court had sentenced the defendant on the day of his conviction before the issue of competency at trial arose, the reasoning upon which the Fifth Circuit found Pate to be inapplicable in Reese applies with equal validity to the present case. The Supreme Court in Drope emphasized the narrow holding of Pate and its principal concern with the creation of procedural rules designed to detect incompetence and ensure a fair trial. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172-75, 95 S.Ct. 896, 904-05, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975). As stated in Drope, the issue is whether in light of what was then known, the failure to make further inquiry into petitioner's competency to stand trial, denied him a fair trial. Id. at 174-75, 95 S.Ct. at 905. In this case, the post-trial evidence of alleged incompetency did not retrospectively render an otherwise fair trial in violation of due process. Ordinarily one cannot fault a trial court judge for failing to determine a question that he has no reason to believe is in issue. Davis v. Alabama, 545 F.2d 460, 464 (5th Cir.1977), quoted in Reese v. Wainwright, 600 F.2d 1085, 1093 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 487, 62 L.Ed.2d 410 (1979). 3