People v. Ary
51 Cal. 4th 510
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Ary was prosecuted for capital murder in Contra Costa County; he confessed after a Miranda waiver; his pretrial suppression attempt hinged on forensics of coercion and mental retardation.
- Trial court ruled Miranda waivers knowing and voluntary, but suppressed the confession as coercive.
- 2000 trial convicted Ary of first-degree murder and other felonies; special circumstances made him eligible for the death penalty; penalties followed a mistrial on sentencing, resulting in life without parole plus a 16-year term.
- Ary I (2004) held a due process violation for failing to conduct a pretrial competency evaluation, and remanded for a retrospective competency hearing to see if the error could be cured.
- On remand, the trial court found evidence existed to evaluate Ary’s competency retrospectively and placed the burden on Ary to prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Court of Appeal affirmed in part and remanded, later holding at a postjudgment hearing that the prosecution bore the burden of proving competency; this Court granted review on that burden allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden of proof at a retrospective competency hearing | People contended the prosecution must prove competency by a preponderance of the evidence. | Ary argued the defendant should bear the burden, consistent with Medina's framework for pretrial impossibility to require burden shifting in retrospective context. | Defendant bears the burden; feasibility is prerequisite and the prosecution need not prove feasibility beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) (due process on competence; burden allocation not per se invalid)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (requirement for competency hearings when reasonable doubt arises)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (standards for competence to stand trial)
- Odle v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084 (2001) (retrospective competency hearings can cure trial error)
- Moran v. Godinez, 57 F.3d 690 (1994) (retrospective competency burden permissible with adequate procedures)
- Tate v. State, 896 P.2d 1188 (1995) (retrospective hearing feasibility factors)
- People v. Ary, 118 Cal.App.4th 1016 (2004) (California Court of Appeal first approved remand for retrospective competency)
- People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (2005) (full competence hearing required; reverse judgment if not held)