in Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. John F. Healey, Jr., District Attorney, 268th Judicial District v. Honorable Brady G. Elliott, Judge 268th District Court, Real Party in Interest Albert James Turner
WR-82,875-01
Tex. Crim. App.Mar 8, 2017Background
- Relator (the State) seeks mandamus/prohibition after the trial court ordered a jury determination of the defendant’s present competency to participate in a retrospective competency trial.
- This matter follows an appellate remand that instructed the trial court to determine whether a retrospective competency trial is feasible and, if so, to conduct one under Chapter 46B, Subchapter C.
- The trial court, however, attempted to empanel a jury to decide whether the defendant is currently competent to undergo that retrospective competency trial.
- The defendant (Turner) has refused to cooperate with court-appointed experts, leaving no record evidence that he is presently incompetent.
- The dissenting opinion argues the trial court exceeded jurisdiction: Chapter 46B authorizes jury trials only to determine competency to stand trial on the merits, not competency to undergo a competency trial; common law likewise does not support a jury on competence to be competent for a competency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may empanel a jury to decide present competency to undergo a competency trial | State: trial court exceeded jurisdiction; appellate remand did not authorize a present-competency jury | Trial court/defendant: needed a present finding of competence to proceed with a retrospective competency trial | Court: trial court exceeded jurisdiction; no statutory or common-law basis for such a jury |
| Whether Chapter 46B authorizes a jury determination of competency to undergo a competency trial | State: Chapter 46B only allows juries to decide competency to stand trial on the merits | Turner: court implied authority to secure fair procedure for retrospective competency determination | Held: Chapter 46B does not authorize a jury on competence for a competency trial; statute limits jury to competence to stand trial on merits |
| Whether evidence exists to trigger jury requirement under Chapter 46B | State: no evidence of current incompetence because Turner refused cooperation | Turner: refusal might justify court action to resolve competency | Held: no evidence in the record to support a finding of incompetency; jury requirement not triggered |
| Whether common law permits a competency determination about competence to undergo a competency trial | State: common law never established a right to be competent during the competency trial itself; that would be logically untenable | Turner: historical procedures might allow pretrial insanity/competency jury protections | Held: common law allowed jury for present insanity as to defense of the criminal charge, but not to decide competence to be competent for a competency trial; no common-law basis here |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. State, 484 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (describing appellate remand and scope of trial-court duties on remand)
- Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussing retrospective competency trials and appellate remedies)
- Owens v. State, 473 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (addressing appellate orders directing retrospective competency proceedings)
- Perry v. State, 703 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (explaining competency-trial purpose and relation to merits)
- Townsend v. State, 427 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) (summarizing common-law origins of jury trials on present insanity)
- State v. Olsen, 360 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. 1962) (historical statement on jury trial for present insanity/competency)