People v. Ary
51 Cal. 4th 510
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Ary was charged with capital murder and later confessed after Miranda waiver; confession suppression occurred due to coercion, but Miranda waiver was upheld.
- Trial convicts Ary of first degree murder and related felonies; special circumstances made him eligible for death penalty; sentencing imposed life without parole plus 16-year term for other felonies after mistrial on penalty.
- Ary I (2004) held the trial court violated due process by not evaluating mental competence before trial and remanded for a retrospective competency hearing feasibility decision.
- The trial court on remand found sufficient evidence to conduct a retrospective competency hearing and placed the burden on Ary to prove incompetence; court found Ary competent at trial by preponderance.
- The Court of Appeal (2008) vacated the retrospective finding, requiring prosecution to prove competency at the time of trial by a preponderance; this court granted review to resolve burden allocation.
- This Court reverses, holding that at a retrospective hearing the defendant bears the burden of proving incompetence, provided feasibility of the retrospective determination is first determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden of proof at a retrospective competency hearing? | People argued the prosecution bears the burden after remand. | Ary argued the defendant bears the burden consistent with Medina. | Burden lies with defendant; feasibility must be found first. |
| Whether a retrospective hearing can cure a failure to evaluate competency at trial? | Prosecution should be able to show feasibility and cure the error. | Best approach is to remand for a retrospective assessment if feasible. | Feasibility must be established; if feasible, retrospective hearing can cure the error. |
| What standard governs feasibility for a retrospective hearing? | Preponderance of evidence adequate for feasibility. | Standards for feasibility were unsettled and not to be heightened. | Lower feasible standard governs; preponderance is appropriate for feasibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (due process on competency; burdens question not inherently fundamental)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (requirement of competency hearing when reasonable doubt arises)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (defining standard for competency to stand trial)
- Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2001) (retrospective competency hearing can cure trial-competency error)
- Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1994) (retrospective competency hearings permissible with adequate procedures)
- People v. Ary, 118 Cal.App.4th 1016 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (first California case approving remand for retrospective competency hearing)
- People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (2005) (full competence hearing required; judgment reversed if not held)