Court Rejects Expert's Conclusion of Defendant's Competence

If substantial evidence exists that a defendant can't rationally assist his attorney, a full competency hearing is required, even when a mental health expert witness concludes the defendant is legally competent to stand trial, the California Court of Appeals has ruled, reversing the conviction of the defendant on multiple counts of child sex offenses.

In California v. Houser (Cal. Ct. App. 4th, 2016), the defendant Houser appealed his conviction on multiple counts of child sexual offenses, questioning whether the trial court's ruling that he was mentally competent was supported by substantial evidence.

During the trial, the defense counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendant's competency to stand trial. The previous day the defendant was, counsel said, "having a hard time keeping it together, and I had to constantly pat him on the back and say, are you okay, hang in there."

The trial court found the defendant's emotional response understandable, given that the previous day the defendant had listened to the victim's testimony and a recorded phone call where he admitted to the victim's mother the sexual offenses he had committed. The court ruled that it would not suspend proceedings, but would arrange for a psychiatrist or psychologist to interview the defendant and testify as to his competency, if defense counsel believed the defendant was not competent.

Defense counsel objected to not suspending the proceedings, and later the same day, reported that he and his supervisor had spoken to defendant, and the defendant told them he was hearing voices, in spite of his antipsychotic medication. Defense counsel told the trial court that, because of the voices, the defendant was unable to assist in his defense.

The trial court again expressed doubt, noting that "it was not required" to appoint a mental health expert witness, but that "in this situation it wouldn't be a bad idea."

The trial court appointed a clinical psychologist expert witness, Dr. Chuck Leeb, who interviewed the defendant and testified that the defendant was schizophrenic and hearing voices, and that he had an irrational but genuine fear of the prosecutor, which resulted in a "flat out panic response". Based on Leeb's understanding of the legal requirements, he concluded that the defendant was competent, but that "the conclusions are really much more complicated than it seems."

Leeb testified that the defendant's "level of anxiety could [intefer] with his, I guess, ability to cooperate," and that there might be medications to control his anxiety, but that it was "nevertheless “on some level” a matter of choice."

The Appeals Court disagreed with Leeb's conclusion that it was a matter of choice for the defendant, finding that Leeb's own testimony "strongly suggests otherwise", that the defendant's panic response was "sufficiently severe to prevent him from exercising his ability to choose to enter the courtroom."

The evidence, the Appeals Court found, was clearly sufficient to doubt the defendant's ability to rationally assist in his defense; the trial court erred in not ordering a full competency hearing.

At the time of Leeb's testimony, the issue before the trial court was whether his testimony raised a reasonable doubt as to defendant's competence, triggering his constitutional right to a full competency hearing — not whether the defendant was or was not mentally competent.

While Appeals Court noted that "it could be argued that defendant was effectively given a full hearing on the question of competency," the California Supreme Court had previously rejected that argument in People v. Pennington (1967) 66 Cal.2d 508.

Judges merely taking evidence to guide them in declaring the existence of a "doubt" as to competence is not a competency hearing, the Appeals Court said, noting that the elements of a competency hearing are specifically provided for by Penal Code (§ 1369). Defense counsel had no opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, as provided for in the Code, nor was he given the chance to review the expert witness report in advance of Leeb's testimony, nor to consult with a physician regarding treatment with anti-anxiety medication, as suggested by Leeb.

The Appeals Court found that the hearing provided by the trial court was not equivalent to a full competency hearing, requiring reversal.