21 Cal. App. 5th 267
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- 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 scarring and swelling.
- Before and during trial, Johnson exhibited severe and escalating abnormal behavior: shouting, rocking, head‑banging, self‑inflicted injuries, bleeding, hearing voices, losing bowel control, refusal to appear, placement in medical jail housing, and suicide watch; defense counsel repeatedly expressed doubt about competence.
- The trial court repeatedly denied defense requests for a competency hearing, concluding Johnson was manipulating proceedings and relying on earlier calm appearances and jail/guard testimony; no psychiatric expert evaluated competence or testified.
- A jury convicted Johnson of the charged offenses (mayhem conviction based on facial biting); some enhancements were dismissed for insufficient evidence; one count (dissuading a witness) resulted in acquittal.
- The appellate court reversed the judgment because the trial court failed to order a statutorily and constitutionally required competency hearing in the face of substantial evidence of incompetence; it held mayhem evidence was sufficient for retrial if competence is established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to hold a competency hearing under Penal Code §1368 and federal due process | Prosecution: court properly assessed demeanor and prior calm appearances; behavior was manipulative, not incompetence | Defense: defendant’s extreme, self‑destructive, psychotic‑like behavior and counsel’s doubt constituted substantial evidence of incompetence requiring a §1368 hearing | Reversed: substantial evidence of incompetence existed; court was required to hold a competency hearing before proceeding |
| Whether evidence supports mayhem conviction (permanent disfigurement) | Prosecution: biting that caused permanent scarring and numbness to lip and eyelid fits modern mayhem rationale protecting facial integrity | Defense: injuries were punctures/temporary, not a statutory “slit” or disfiguring under §203 | Held sufficient: victim’s testimony of permanent scars and sensory loss supported mayhem; retrial permissible if defendant found competent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pennington, 66 Cal.2d 508 (1967) (once substantial evidence of present incompetence appears, defendant is entitled to a §1368 hearing as a matter of right)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (due process requires hearing when substantial evidence raises doubt about competency)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (trial court must remain alert to changes in competency and protect defendant’s due process rights)
- People v. Jones, 53 Cal.3d 1115 (1991) (substantial‑evidence test for competency triggering mandatory hearing)
- People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (2006) (suicidal ideation alone may not be substantial evidence absent bizarre behavior or expert testimony)
- People v. Welch, 20 Cal.4th 701 (1999) (distinguishing paranoia/distrust from incompetence to stand trial)
- People v. Santana, 56 Cal.4th 999 (2013) (modern rationale of mayhem protects facial integrity and appearance)
- People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (2005) (expert neuropsychological testing and evaluation relevant to competency analysis)
- People v. Hale, 44 Cal.3d 531 (1988) (failure to use procedures to prevent trial of incompetent defendant violates due process)