California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Visciotti, 2 Cal.4th 1, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388 (Cal. 1992):
It is apparent from this record that counsel's request for appointment of experts for the dual purpose of assisting counsel in making a decision on [2 Cal.4th 36] whether to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and to render an opinion on defendant's competence was preliminary to consideration by counsel, let alone the judge, of whether either had a doubt as to defendant's competence. Neither counsel nor the judge expressed a doubt as to defendant's competence and the judge did not order section 1368 proceedings. The typed recital in the form order to the effect that the defendant "may fall within the definition set forth in the appropriate statute indicated above" reflects nothing more than an explanation or justification for the appointment of the experts. 9 It is not the statement contemplated by section 1368 that the court presently has a doubt as to the defendant's competency. 10 (Cf. People v. Westbrook (1964) 62 Cal.2d 197, 203, 41 Cal.Rptr. 809, 397 P.2d 545 [criminal proceedings suspended and cause transferred to "psychiatric department," an order that could only be explained by the court having a doubt as to the defendant's sanity].)
In Hale, by contrast, the court expressed a doubt as to the defendant's competence based on the defendant's conduct and demeanor in the courtroom, inquired of counsel, who agreed that in his opinion the defendant was not competent, and ordered a hearing " 'on the question of the defendant's present mental competency.' " (People v. Hale, supra, 44 Cal.3d 531, 535-536, 244 Cal.Rptr. 114, 749 P.2d 769.) Similarly, in People v. Marks, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1335, 248 Cal.Rptr. 874, 756 P.2d 260, the trial court had stated a doubt as to the defendant's mental competence and had ordered " 'the question of his mental competence to be determined in a special hearing which will be held pursuant to Sections 1368.1 and 1369 of the Penal Code.' " (Id., at p. 1338, 248 Cal.Rptr. 874, 756 P.2d 260.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.