Court Opinion

ID: 9615204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:32:37.414655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:43.223632
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge,
concurring in results.
I concur in the results reached by the Court in this case. However, I disagree with the Court’s analysis of the issue of determination of present competency pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.1 et seq. as the “defense of present sanity”. Our jurisprudence recognizes a defense of insanity at the time the offense was committed, but not a defense of “present insanity”. See Miller v. State, 751 P.2d 733 (Okl.Cr.1988). The provisions of 22 O.S.Supp.1983, § 1161, do address the procedure to be applied if a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime charged. However, the issue raised by Petitioner in this case was the post-examination competency hearing required by Section 1175.4 to determine his competency at the time of trial to understand the nature of the charges and proceedings brought against him, and be able to effectively and rationally assist in his defense.