Kennedy v. State, 85 A.3d 106

Kennedy was tried for murder and related offenses after a 2010 Baltimore shooting; at trial he cried, asked questions showing some understanding, and later shoved the prosecutor during a reenactment.
Defense counsel repeatedly moved for a mistrial after the courtroom incident and, during a bench colloquy about the mistrial, said he had trouble communicating with Kennedy, believed “there’s something wrong with him,” and asked to “have him evaluated.”
The trial judge denied the mistrial and did not order any competency evaluation; the jury convicted Kennedy and he was sentenced to 65 years.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether defense counsel’s request was sufficiently clear to trigger Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 3-104(a) (duty to determine competency on the record).
The Court (majority) held the request to “have him evaluated” was too vague and embedded in a mistrial motion, not pursued, and therefore did not trigger § 3-104(a); the judgment was affirmed.
A dissent argued that, under the totality of circumstances, counsel’s statements were sufficient to put the trial court on notice to order a competency evaluation and would have remanded for evaluation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kennedy)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether defense counsel’s request to “have him evaluated” triggered § 3-104(a) (court must determine competency on record)	Counsel’s statements about communication problems, belief that “something was wrong,” and explicit request to have Kennedy evaluated put the court on notice and triggered a competency determination	The request was vague, embedded in a mistrial motion, never clearly pursued despite opportunities, and facts did not raise a bona fide doubt as to competency	Held: Request was not sufficiently clear to trigger § 3-104(a); no competency determination was required; conviction affirmed

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (establishes right not to be tried if incompetent)
Roberts v. State, 361 Md. 346 (2000) (clarifies that alleging incompetence, even briefly, can trigger competency procedures)
Thanos v. State, 330 Md. 77 (trial court’s duty to determine competency can be triggered by defendant, defense counsel, or sua sponte)
Peaks v. State, 419 Md. 239 (competency determination is factual and reviewed for clear error)
Jones v. State, 280 Md. 282 (sufficiency of competency allegation to alert court)
Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587 (standard for mistrial motion—whether prejudice deprives defendant of fair trial)
State v. Northam, 421 Md. 195 (vague requests buried in other motions do not trigger separate relief)
Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276 (trial judge has duty to raise competency sua sponte if bona fide doubt exists)
Hill v. State, 35 Md. App. 98 (1977) (defense counsel’s explicit statement about prior hospitalization and plea of not criminally responsible clearly triggered competency/insanity inquiry)