21 Cal.App.5th 267
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Derek Antonio Johnson was tried for domestic violence causing injury, assault likely to inflict great bodily injury, and mayhem based on a February 15, 2016 attack in which he bit the victim’s face (lip and eyelid) causing scars and disfigurement.
- Prior uncharged domestic-violence incidents and the charged incident were admitted at trial; jury convicted on the three counts but deadlocked on great-bodily-injury enhancements; some allegations were dismissed.
- During pretrial and trial proceedings (June 6–22, 2016), defendant displayed escalating bizarre and self-harming behavior: shouting, banging his head, hitting and slapping his face, hearing voices, defecating in his pants, being placed in medical housing and on suicide watch, and refusing to appear for trial.
- Defense counsel repeatedly requested a competency hearing under Penal Code § 1368, asserting defendant could not assist in his defense; the trial court denied the requests, concluding the behavior was manipulative and not indicative of incompetence.
- No mental-health professional testified or provided a psychological evaluation of defendant’s fitness to stand trial.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding the trial court erred by refusing a competency hearing because substantial evidence raised a reasonable doubt about defendant’s competence; it also held there was sufficient evidence to support mayhem for retrial if competency is found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to hold a competency hearing | No: trial court observed lucidity at prior proceedings and believed behavior was manipulative, so no substantial evidence of incompetence | Yes: escalating bizarre, self-harming conduct, hearing voices, bowel incontinence, suicide watch, and counsel’s concerns constituted substantial evidence of incompetence | Reversed: trial court had no discretion once substantial evidence of incompetence appeared; competency hearing required |
| Whether defendant’s courtroom behavior could be deemed manipulation rather than incompetence | Prosecutor/trial court: behavior explained by strategic gamesmanship and delays | Defense: behavior was symptomatic of mental illness/decompensation and counsel could not communicate with him | Court: absence of psychiatric evaluation and severity of behavior meant a reasonable jurist could doubt competence; cannot rely solely on court’s observations |
| Whether evidence supported the mayhem conviction (sufficiency of evidence) | Prosecution: biting caused permanent scarring/disfigurement of face (lip, eyelid, eyebrow) sufficient for mayhem | Defendant: injuries were punctures/minor and not a ‘‘slit’’ or permanent disfigurement required for mayhem | Held: evidence was sufficient; permanent scarring and loss of sensation supported mayhem conviction for retrial if competency established |
| Remedy and retrial implications | Prosecution: conviction should stand or retrial allowed | Defense: reversal required; double jeopardy might bar retrial if insufficient evidence | Held: judgment reversed for failure to hold competency hearing; retrial on mayhem permitted if court finds defendant competent after a full hearing and prosecution re-files charges |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pennington, 66 Cal.2d 508 (trial court must hold a competency hearing when defendant presents substantial evidence of incompetence)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (defendant entitled to hearing on present sanity when substantial evidence suggests incompetence)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (trial court duty to protect against trial of incompetent defendant)
- People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (failure to hold competency hearing when warranted violates due process)
- People v. Jones, 53 Cal.3d 1115 (trial court must order a hearing when substantial evidence of incompetence appears)
- People v. Welch, 20 Cal.4th 701 (distinguishing knowledge of law or courtroom behavior from incompetence)
- People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (defining substantial evidence threshold for competency issues)
- People v. Santana, 56 Cal.4th 999 (modern rationale of mayhem protects facial integrity and appearance)
- People v. Hale, 44 Cal.3d 531 (failure to protect against trial of incompetent defendant requires reversal)