State v. Hollars, 833 S.E.2d 5

Defendant Jack Howard Hollars was indicted for sex offenses arising from events in 1977–1981; trial occurred January 2018 after years of pretrial proceedings and psychiatric evaluations.
From 2012–2017 Hollars underwent multiple competency evaluations with mixed results: some found him incompetent (noting psychosis, hallucinations, schizophrenia, mild neurocognitive disorder), others found him competent after stabilization on medication.
The trial court found Hollars competent at a September 5, 2017 hearing based on a final August 2017 evaluation, but trial did not begin until January 2018 (≈5 months later).
During trial (January 10, 2018), defense counsel reported a brief conversation with Hollars that raised concerns about Hollars’s capacity that afternoon (Hollars said he “didn’t know what was going on”); the court deferred any inquiry to the next morning and then accepted defense counsel’s statement that he had no further concerns.
Jury convicted Hollars on all counts; on appeal the primary issue was whether the trial court violated due process by failing to hold a competency hearing immediately prior to or during trial when substantial evidence raised a bona fide doubt about competence.

Issue	State's Argument	Hollars' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated due process by failing to conduct a competency hearing immediately before or during trial	No bona fide doubt existed at trial because recent evaluations (Aug–Sept 2017) found Hollars competent and defense counsel expressly represented competence; the court therefore properly declined a new hearing	Trial court should have sua sponte held a competency hearing because multiple prior evaluations showed psychosis and divergent findings, there was a long gap between the last competency finding and trial, treating physicians warned of temporal instability, and defense counsel raised contemporaneous concerns during trial	Reversed and remanded: trial court erred by not holding a competency hearing; remand for retrospective hearing to determine whether a meaningful retrospective competency determination is possible, and if not, grant a new trial

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (establishes due process rule that an accused may not be tried while legally incompetent)
State v. Badgett, 361 N.C. 234 (trial court must sua sponte hold competency hearing where substantial evidence raises bona fide doubt)
State v. McRae, 139 N.C. App. 387 (error to proceed to trial without a competency hearing where defendant’s competency was temporally unstable and prior evaluations conflicted)
State v. Staten, 172 N.C. App. 673 (competency hearing required when bona fide doubt exists; demeanor and prior medical opinions are relevant)
State v. Taylor, 298 N.C. 405 (conviction of an incompetent defendant violates due process)
State v. Cooper, 286 N.C. 549 (competency must be assessed at time of trial)