The Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies Procedural and Substantive Requirements in Competence to Stand Trial Proceedings
In the case of State v. Mitchell, 539 P.3d 218 (Kan. 2023), the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the appeal of a defendant who asserted that he had been tried while incompetent to stand trial. Devawn T. Mitchell was convicted of felony murder and other charges following his involvement in a fatal collision with another vehicle during a police pursuit. Despite initial concerns about his psychiatric history, Mr. Mitchell was found competent to stand trial in a post-conviction hearing. The Supreme Court of Kansas upheld his conviction and sentence, ruling that the lower court complied with the state’s statute for competency hearings.
Facts of the Case
Mr. Mitchell was allegedly involved in various traffic infractions that resulted in numerous pursuits by law enforcement. He was ultimately involved in a fatal collision with another vehicle. Mr. Mitchell was convicted on charges of felony murder, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, and fleeing and eluding after a bench trial in the District Court of Lyon County, Kansas.
Mr. Mitchell’s defense initially raised concerns about his psychiatric history and competency to stand trial and filed a pretrial notice of lack of intent due to mental disease or defect. He was evaluated by a psychologist contracted by his defense attorney. After hearing back from this psychologist, Mr. Mitchell’s defense withdrew this filing. The court held a two-day bench trial, during which Mr. Mitchell presented no evidence. He was found guilty on all charges.
After the trial, Mr. Mitchell’s defense attorney filed a motion to determine competency. Crosswinds Counseling performed a competency evaluation. The forensic evaluator opined that Mr. Mitchell had symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia but was able to participate in his defense with “coaching and support.” The evaluator explained that Mr. Mitchell was coached to identify methods to remain calm to work toward treatment goals with good effect, indicating behavioral control when he is offered relevant incentives. At this competency hearing, Mr. Mitchell again presented no additional evidence and was found competent to stand trial. The district court ordered a life sentence with a minimum of 554 months before parole eligibility, followed by a consecutive controlling 39-month sentence. Mr. Mitchell appealed directly to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erred in finding him competent on procedural and substantive grounds.
Ruling and Reasoning
The Supreme Court of Kansas upheld the conviction and sentence of Mr. Mitchell for felony murder and his related offenses. The Kansas Supreme Court noted that the defendant bears the burden of proof via a preponderance of the evidence in demonstrating incompetence to stand trial (relying on State v. Cellier, 948 P.2d 616 (Kan. 1997)), and is otherwise presumed competent (relying on State v. Woods, 348 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2015)).
The court found that procedural due process was satisfied when Mr. Mitchell’s attorney requested and received a court-ordered competency evaluation followed by a hearing on Mr. Mitchell’s competence. Mr. Mitchell argued for substantive error in that his assessment recommended he should be given “coaching and support” to understand the legal process and participate in his defense, which he did not receive. The Kansas Supreme Court noted that, as the defendant bears the burden of proof, it was on Mr. Mitchell and his attorney to prove that he was not given coaching and support. During his competency hearing, they offered no such evidence.
Mr. Mitchell stated he requested a competency evaluation at “Larned” (Larned State Hospital), which was denied. In reviewing the district court transcripts, the court interpreted Mr. Mitchell’s statements about Larned as a request for clarification; thus, no request for evaluation was denied. Mr. Mitchell had already been evaluated at Crosswinds Counseling.
Furthermore, the court delved into Mr. Mitchell’s claim that the district court erred by not recognizing its discretion to order an evaluation sua sponte prior to sentencing. The court clarified that the trial court’s decision not to order a presentence mental evaluation was within its discretion. Despite Mr. Mitchell’s mental health history and involuntary commitments, the court was not obligated to provide compelling reasons for not ordering the evaluation (citing State v. Hilyard, 515 P.3d 267 (Kan. 2022)). The Kansas Supreme Court explained that the district court’s statements during sentencing did not indicate a lack of awareness of its discretion. Rather, it referred to the discretion in imposing a sentence without an evaluation, affirming the overall legality of the conviction and sentencing decisions in the case.
Discussion
Mental health conditions can exert a major effect on a defendant’s factual and rational understanding of legal proceedings and individual rights. Forensic experts play an essential role in protecting the rights of people with mental health conditions whose competence abilities are impaired. Competence evaluations are a critical component of ensuring substantive due process, namely in reducing the likelihood that defendants will be tried while incompetent. In this case, the defendant was opined to experience schizophrenia, a psychotic disorder that can impair many different abilities required for competence to stand trial. Some of these deficits and their connection to a mental illness may not be readily apparent, hence the importance of utilizing an expert forensic professional to assist the court in understanding a defendant’s mental status and competence abilities.
The Kansas Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not ordering a competence evaluation in Mr. Mitchell’s case. The court placed the burden on the defendant and his attorney to establish the basis for a finding of incompetence. Court personnel are not trained in diagnosing mental illness and often request evaluations based on odd mannerisms or difficulty communicating with the defendant. This difference in training increases the value of a forensic evaluation in the legal process. Requesting an evaluation itself demonstrates a degree of concern for the defendant’s abilities. In this case, Mr. Mitchell was evaluated on two separate occasions, pretrial by a psychologist hired by his attorney and post-conviction and presentencing by a court-ordered evaluator. Mr. Mitchell believed he had requested another evaluation, but because of ambiguity in this exchange, the court decided this was not a request. The post-conviction evaluation was used in a competency hearing held by the trial court.
A forensic evaluator’s expertise is invaluable to the court in identifying a defendant’s symptoms and connecting them to specific deficits in competence abilities that attorneys and judges can appreciate. Such deficits may include a defendant’s difficulty communicating with the attorney related to a delusional belief that the attorney is an imposter, or not understanding a charge of breaking and entering because the defendant believes the defendant owns the property. If a defendant seems withdrawn and inattentive, a forensic mental health evaluator can explore for a connection to hallucinations or disordered thoughts. As mental health experts, they are trained to recognize the nuance of a defendant’s presentation and explain how it affects various aspects of cognition, ultimately providing the court with the information material to addressing the ultimate problem.
Evaluators must take care to be clear and precise in their explanations. In this case, there was noted ambiguity in the interpretation of Mr. Mitchell’s need for “coaching and support” in relation to his competence abilities. When providing such recommendations, evaluators should be specific regarding what supports are needed, how often, and how the court may accommodate them. For example, a defendant may be easily overwhelmed and benefit from short breaks. In a system that puts the burden on the defendant and the attorney to prove incompetence, a forensic evaluator serves a crucial role in protecting a defendant’s constitutional rights.
- © 2024 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
