In what circumstances will a defendant be found competent to stand trial?

In Hale, unlike the present case, the psychiatrists evaluated the defendant's competence with respect to proceedings that had not yet occurred: The relevant question was whether the defendant had the ability to understand and assist counsel in proceedings that were to be held at that time. The same is true of the other cases appellant relies upon. (People v. Stankewitz, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 88-89, 92-93 [trial court improperly denied competency hearing prior to trial where psychiatrist found defendant unable to assist counsel due to mental defect]; People v. Pennington, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 511, 517-519 [ 1368 hearing sought during trial; court improperly resolved conflicting evidence without full competency hearing].)¹⁴ Here, the psychologists evaluated appellant's competence at the time of the evaluations, but the relevant question was appellant's competence during the trial that had previously concluded. The reports did not address this question and therefore did not constitute substantial evidence that appellant was incompetent during trial.

United States v. Mason (4th Cir. 1995) 52 F.3d 1286, which appellant views as similar to his case, differs in the same critical respect. The defendant in Mason was convicted in the first phase of trial and, while released pending the second (forfeiture) phase the next day, attempted suicide. (Id. at p. 1287.) After a psychological evaluation concluded the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect requiring care and treatment, the district court held a hearing to determine his competence to proceed with the forfeiture phase and sentencing but denied motions for new trial based on alleged

Page 21