State of Missouri v. Jesse Driskill, 459 S.W.3d 412

Background

On July 26–27, 2010 Jesse Driskill broke into the home of elderly couple J.W. (82) and C.W. (76), robbed, sexually assaulted C.W., and killed both victims; he burned their house and vehicle. DNA from vaginal swabs matched Driskill. He confessed to several acquaintances and was arrested July 27, 2010.
Driskill was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, burglary, and five counts of armed criminal action; the State sought death. Jury convicted on all counts and recommended death for both murders; the trial court imposed two death sentences plus lengthy consecutive terms for other offenses.
Before and during trial defense presented two competency evaluations with conflicting conclusions: Dr. Gruenberg (May 2013) found incompetency without medication; Dr. Fucetola (July 2013) found competence, but later emailed concern that Driskill’s panic attacks might impair his ability to assist counsel during attacks.
During voir dire and the penalty phase Driskill suffered panic/anxiety episodes, repeatedly asked to leave the courtroom, declined closed-circuit participation at times, and chose not to testify; defense requested competency evaluation, continuance for medication, and other accommodations which the trial court denied in favor of questioning and intermittent recesses.
On direct appeal Driskill raised six points: (1) trial-court error in accepting verdicts despite incompetency, (2) denial of right to be present when excused, (3) involuntary waiver of right to testify, (4) denial of continuance/medication, (5) refusal to send exhibits to jury, and (6) admission of victim-impact evidence. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions and death sentences; Justice Breckenridge dissented on competency grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Driskill)	Held
Competency to stand trial	Trial court properly evaluated conflicting expert reports, observed defendant, and found competence; no duty to order another exam absent new evidence.	Driskill suffered panic attacks and had expert opinions indicating he might not be able to assist counsel during attacks; court should have ordered mandatory competency exam.	Affirmed: Court found substantial evidence supporting trial court's competency finding and that accommodations (recesses/remote observation) were adequate; no mandatory new evaluation required.
Right to be present	Defendant voluntarily and repeatedly waived presence on the record; waivers were knowing and intelligent.	Absences were compelled by untreated mental illness and followed denial of competency hearing, so waivers were not voluntary.	Affirmed: Waivers on the record were voluntary; issue reviewed for plain error and none found.
Right to testify	Defendant knowingly waived testimony after consultation; court repeatedly confirmed voluntariness.	He wanted to testify but could not due to untreated panic disorder and thus waiver was involuntary/coerced.	Affirmed: Court found no coercion; defendant made clear, rational statements declining to testify.
Continuance / medication	Trial court has discretion; recesses and accommodations were given; no abuse of discretion shown.	Denial of medication/continuance prevented effective assistance and participation.	Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; competency finding defeats claim that medication was required.
Jury access to exhibits in penalty phase	Court acted within discretion in refusing to send voluminous, partly adverse exhibits; memory and instructions suffice.	Excluding defense mitigation exhibits prevented jury’s review of mitigation evidence and impaired right to present mitigation.	Affirmed: Sending a 1,100+ page defense file while excluding contested prosecution exhibits was not required; no injustice shown.
Victim-impact evidence	Testimony and photos were brief and admissible to show loss; not unduly prejudicial.	Evidence was excessive and emotionally inflammatory, overwhelming the jury.	Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion; victim-impact testimony was permissible and not constitutionally excessive.

Key Cases Cited

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process forbids trying defendant lacking competency; court must investigate when doubt arises)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (competency standard: ability to consult with counsel and understand proceedings)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (failure to inquire into competency when substantial evidence exists violates due process)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may lose right to be present for disruptive conduct; right to presence can be waived)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (waiver of constitutional rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (waiver considered knowing and intelligent if defendant understands nature of right in general terms)