Court Opinion

ID: 9768308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:55:11.72367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:52.663111
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
We granted review to consider yet another variation of a hard problem created when the Legislature proposed and the people approved restructuring our appellate criminal justice system, and compounded by implementing legislation in Acts 1981, 67th Leg., Ch. 291, p. 761, effective September 1, 1981 (“S.B. 265”).
Van Guilder v. State, 709 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), addressed the problem in a context of an affirmative defense of insanity. However, for reasons expounded in my dissenting opinion in Schuessler v. State, 719 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), and in Hill v. State, 719 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Cr. App.1986), the solution found by Van Guilder is demonstrably unsound. Following a somewhat different analysis in Baker v. State, 707 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), Presiding Judge Onion characterized it an “absurdity.” Nevertheless, a majority “persists in compounding the errors of Van Guilder,” Hill v. State, supra, and I continue to dissent.
The instant cause illustrates again that what Presiding Judge Onion calls in his *594concurring opinion herein “the affirmative defense rationality test” formulated in Van Guilder is itself irrational in application. To utilize the test here, its formulator must find, albeit sub silentio, that Article 46.02, § 1(b), V.A.C.C.P., places the burden of proof in a competency hearing on the defendant to prove incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. Maj. Opinion, p. 592. In terms, Article 46.02 provides no such thing.
Article 46.02, § 1(b), supra, declares a presumption that an accused is and must be found competent to stand trial “unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence.”1 Where has the Legislature written that the burden of proof shall be borne by an accused? Unlike insanity, the Penal Code does not identify incompetency as a defense or an affirmative defense.2 Nor does § 1(b).3 Either an accused or trial judge may raise the issue pretrial; during trial evidence “from any source” may raise the issue. Article 46.02, § 2(a) and (b). See Sisco v. State, 599 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) and Williams v. State, 663 S.W.2d 832 (Tex.Cr. App.1984). The requisites of hearing prescribed in § 4 do not allocate burdens of proof or persuasion at all, and implicit in § 4(d) is the notion that policy considerations may be better effectuated without assigning trappings of advocacy to one side or the other.4 Compare Article 46.03, § 1(c): “... and the defense has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of the alleged offense.” Accord: V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 8.01.
Since burden of proof is not assigned by Article 46.02, ipse dixit of the majority that “the standards imposed are identical” is a non sequitur. Incompetency is not an affirmative defense. To utilize “the standard of review established in Van Guilder” in this cause proves again just how unprincipled it really is.
Given the rash of similarly awkward applications of Van Guilder — and, indeed, the division among us — it is evident that the Court must formulate a workable standard of review for affirmative defenses and similar matters requiring proof by a preponderance of evidence.
Until 1981 appellate review of sufficiency of evidence pertaining to such matters reposed solely in this Court, and in, e.g., White v. State, 591 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (jury verdict in competency hearing), and Martin v. State, 605 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (court finding of sanity in probation revocation hearing), we sorted them out in light of constitutional and statutory provisions then extant, viz:
“After an examination of the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we conclude that this court has no fact jurisdiction as do the Courts of Civil Appeals, and cannot ‘unfind’ a vital fact finding by a jury. Since we do not have the jurisdiction to pass upon the *595great weight and preponderance of the evidence, appellant’s contention [thus challenging verdict of competency] is overruled.”
White, supra, at 856. Accord: Martin, supra, at 261.
Since September 1, 1981, of course, courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction of criminal cases on direct appeal pursuant to Article 4.03, Y.A.C.C.P. They retain constitutional “fact jurisdiction,” such that “the decision of said courts shall be conclusive on all questions of fact brought before them on appeal or error.” Article V, § 6. Many are now exercising “fact jurisdiction” in criminal cases; obviously those courts of appeals believe they have power and authority to do so. See cases collated in note 2 of my dissenting opinion in Hill v. State, supra.
In Minor v. State, 657 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), noting the views expressed by Chief Justice Cadena in his concurring opinion below, this Court made clear that Combs v. State, 643 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), had not answered all pertinent questions on the subject under by S.B. 265. Moreover, Combs involved sufficiency of evidence to prove an element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than an affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence. Hill, supra (dissenting opinion). Therefore, until Van Guilder there were open questions.
Since the answer in Van Guilder is incorrect, and in any event is not applicable here, I must dissent.

. All emphasis is mine throughout unless otherwise indicated.

. Of course, it is neither. Incompetency is condition of mind, and like all other civilized jurisdictions the State of Texas will not put an incompetent accused to trial on a criminal charge. So long as the status of incompetency obtains there will not be a trial, but that does not make it a defense or affirmative defense to the crime charged. The societal interest thus served is explained in Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966).

. In White v. State, 591 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979), there is language indicating § l(b') assigns burdens of proof. In the course of deciding that a competency hearing is civil in nature and therefore each party in entitled to six peremptory challenges, looking only to Article 46.-02, § 1(b) and without further examination of the matter, the Court remarked that the burden of proof in a "regular” competency hearing "will be on the defendant and not the State.” Id., at 854. However, when other relevant factors and indicia are considered, see post, in that particular White is not persuasive.

.Indeed, in this very case the prosecutor purposefully elicited from an expert witness for appellant that she should be "placed in a hospital setting at the present time ...,” did not crossexamine appellant nor present any evidence, and then urged upon the jury its "hope, that based on the evidence, you would find she is incompetent....”