Court Opinion

ID: 9760233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:43:42.012301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.322455
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
In Sisco v. State, 599 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) this Court found under Article 46.02, § 2(a), V.A.C.C.P., that “in determining after hearing held in advance of trial on the merits whether ‘there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial,’ the trial court is to assay just that evidence tending to show incompetency, putting aside all competing indications of competency, to find whether there is some evidence, more than none or a scintilla, that rationally may lead to a conclusion of incompetency.” We expressly rejected a contention that “the ‘bona fide doubt’ standard applies to the pretrial procedure.” Id., at 613 and see n. 16.
Though we noted, “In the context of making the determination midtrial ... the Court En Banc sharply divided over the quantum of evidence in Johnson v. State, 564 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Cr.App.1978),” and in subsequent decisions that the Court had concluded that “the bona fide doubt in the mind of the trial judge [is] the standard of proof to be met before a separate midtrial determination of ... competency will be required,” the Sisco panel opinion was careful to “leave to the full court” whether Article 46.02, § 2(b), “founded in identical statutory language, should receive the same construction,” ibid.
Today the opinion on original submission finds the evidence is “insufficient to create a bona fide doubt” as to competency of appellant to stand trial, and refers to two pre-Johnson decisions to that effect. In my judgment, the same statutory language should receive the same construction— whether the matter of competency is raised pretrial or midtrial. Still, the Court En Banc has yet to so hold.
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the Court in this cause.