Background

• Appellant charged with assault-family violence by choking and with continuous family violence in Bexar County, Texas.
• A jury later determined appellant competent to stand trial; he was convicted by a separate jury and sentenced to confinement for 26 years and 10 years.
• Appellant challenged the first competency verdict as being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
• Texas law presumes competency; incompetence must be shown by a preponderance, with six statutory factors guiding competency determinations under Article 46B.024.
• Experts Dr. Ferrell and Dr. Skop offered conflicting views on competency; Ferrell found impairment due to narcissistic traits affecting consultation with counsel, while Skop found competency despite such traits; the trial court and appellate review deferred to the jury’s evaluation of conflicting testimony.
• The court held the first competency finding was not manifestly unjust and affirmed the judgment.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standard for comparing weight of evidence in competency)
• Lasiter v. State, 283 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (neutral review of all evidence; restraint from substituting judgment)
• Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (exclusive province of jury to resolve conflicts in testimony)
• Musgrove v. State, 422 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. App.—Waco 2013) (jury may credit or discredit witness testimony)
• Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (virtuallike standard for when verdict shocks the conscience)
• Williams v. State, 191 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (jury’s assessment of witness credibility honored)