75 A.3d 1131
N.H.2013Background
- Defendant broke into victim's home, restrained her with a cloth, and assaulted her over about two hours.
- DNA and physical evidence placed the defendant at the scene; he left glasses, a cap, and bedding behind, and discarded other items.
- Defendant claimed amnesia about the events; he sought a competency hearing arguing he could not communicate relevant facts.
- Dr. Comiskey testified the defendant had good understanding of proceedings and could communicate and retain information.
- Trial court found the defendant had rational and factual understanding and could consult with counsel, despite amnesia.
- Jury convicted the defendant on multiple counts including aggravated felonious sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, and falsifying physical evidence; defendant appealed on competence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the defendant competent to stand trial under Dusky? | Defendant had sufficient rational understanding and could assist counsel. | Amnesia precluded meaningful communication and defense preparation. | Yes; defendant competent under Dusky. |
| Should the court adopt a rigid, multi-factor amnesia test for competence? | No rigid test is required; a flexible, Dusky-based approach suffices. | Judicially preferred list of factors should guide competency determinations. | Court declined rigid factors; adherence to Dusky standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (two-prong Dusky test for competency)
- State v. Moncada, 161 N.H. 791 (2011) (defers to trial court on competence unless no reasonable fact-finder could concur)
- State v. Champagne, 127 N.H. 266 (1985) (adopts Dusky framework in New Hampshire)
- State v. Gourlay, 148 N.H. 75 (2002) (necessary capacity to communicate with counsel for defense)
- State v. Kincaid, 158 N.H. 90 (2008) (amnesia alone does not automatically violate competency; many ways to assist defense)
- United States v. Rinchack, 820 F.2d 1557 (1987) (strong circumstantial evidence may defeat a claimed amnesia defense)
- United States v. Andrews, 469 F.3d 1113 (2006) (amnesia does not necessarily preclude valid defense when evidence against defendant is strong)