State v. Hines, 165 Conn. App. 1

Craig Hines was charged with two counts of murder and one count of carrying a pistol without a permit; after a jury trial he was convicted and sentenced to a total effective term of 125 years.
Initial competency evaluation (Dr. Bonetti) found Hines delusional and incompetent but restorable; court ordered 60-day inpatient restoration at Whiting Forensic Division.
Whiting evaluators (McKinley team) produced a second competency report concluding Hines was malingering and had antisocial personality disorder, not an active psychotic disorder, and recommended a finding of competency.
Judge Clifford held a hearing on restoration to competency, heard McKinley’s testimony, observed Hines’s courtroom behavior, and found Hines restored to competency.
During jury selection Hines repeatedly made loud, timed coughing/clearing noises and other disruptive conduct; after warnings the court removed him to the courthouse lockup when he refused to comply, and selected two jurors in his absence.
Hines appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion in finding restoration to competency and (2) the court erred in removing him from the courtroom (waiver of presence, need for new competency eval, and placement in lockup vs. other accommodations).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hines)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in finding Hines restored to competency after Whiting evaluation	Court may rely on Whiting report and evaluator testimony; burden on defendant to show incompetence	Finding unreasonable because prior judge found incompetent and Hines received no real "treatment," court should have sought further inquiry/third opinion, court relied exclusively on second report	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; statute does not require a particular course of treatment, burden on defendant to prove incompetence, court reasonably relied on Whiting report and testimony
Whether removal from courtroom during jury selection violated Hines's right to be present or required a new competency evaluation / different accommodation	Removal and proceeding in absence proper where defendant repeatedly warned and conduct continued; court need not order new eval absent material change; placement in lockup within court's discretion	Hines unable to control behavior so could not knowingly waive presence; court should have ordered new competency eval or provided less restrictive accommodations (conference room, CCTV, counsel consultation)	Affirmed — defendant waived presence by conduct after warnings; no material change in condition to trigger new competency eval; court permissibly used lockup and was not required to permit consultation or delay selection

Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (establishes competency standard: ability to consult with lawyer with reasonable degree of rational understanding and factual/rational understanding of proceedings)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (Court may remove disruptive defendant after warning; defendant may lose right to be present)
Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (defendant has right to personal presence at critical stages)
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (due process protection of right to be present where not confronting witnesses/evidence)
State v. Gonzalez, 205 Conn. 673 (waiver of presence may be inferred from defendant's conduct after adequate warning)
State v. Jordan, 151 Conn. App. 1 (trial court need not personally canvass defendant; standard for competency inquiry)
State v. Edwards, 158 Conn. App. 119 (court not required to order new competency eval absent material change; reliance on prior evaluations and observations)
State v. Paulino, 127 Conn. App. 51 (abuse of discretion standard for competency determinations)