If you didn't see this..

Greene v State
4th Court of Appeals - San Antonio
October 04, 2006 - 04-05-00783-CR
Opinion By: Stone, J.


Competency inquiry should have been conducted by trial court. Bona fide doubt standard replaced by lower threshold for competency inquiry.

On appeal from D�s robbery conviction, D argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting a competency inquiry during trial. Held: The appeal was abated and case remanded for a retrospective determination of D�s competence at the time of trial. A trial court�s decision not to conduct a competency inquiry is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. A defendant is incompetent to stand trial if he or she does not have: (1) sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings [46B.003(a) CCP]. If evidence suggesting the defendant may be incompetent to stand trial comes to the attention of the court, the court on its own motion is required to conduct an inquiry into the defendant�s competency. The current standard for triggering a competency inquiry, �evidence suggesting the defendant may be incompetent,� is phrased differently than the prior standard for requiring a competency inquiry, , �evidence of the defendant�s incompetency . . . from any source� [Compare 46B.004(b) CCP with former article 46.02, � 2(b)]. To trigger an inquiry into the defendant�s competency under the previous �evidence of the defendant�s incompetency . . . from any source� standard, the record had to contain evidence raising a �bona fide doubt� as to the defendant�s competency [ McDaniel, 98 SW3d 704, 710-12]. A �bona fide doubt� was defined as �a real doubt in the judge�s mind as to the defendant�s competency.� Under the current statute, however, it is not required that the record contain evidence raising a �bona fide doubt� to trigger an inquiry into the defendant�s competency. The current statute uses the terms �suggest� and �suggestion� with regard to when a court must conduct a competency inquiry, whereas the former version of the statute did not. The legislature�s addition of this language to the statute signifies an intent to depart from the �bona fide doubt� requirement previously established by caselaw. Here, the trial court should have inquired into D�s competency during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial because the court was presented with evidence suggesting that D was incompetent to stand trial. The trial court heard D make rambling, nonresponsive answers to questions. It also heard D provide testimony of a most bizarre quality. Such testimony demonstrated that D had confused thoughts and was out of touch with reality at the time he testified. Moreover, the court was on notice that D was on schizophrenia medication and had a long history of mental illness. Although D�s trial counsel withdrew his pretrial request for a jury trial on the competency issue, the statute places the burden to conduct an informal inquiry regarding competency on the trial court, and notwithstanding trial counsel�s actions, the trial court had before it sufficient evidence suggesting that D might have been incompetent.