State v. PayneÂ, 256 N.C. App. 572

Background

On Aug. 4, 2013, Tina Payne allegedly shot her daughter and son during a struggle over a .22 handgun; Payne later attempted self-harm and was arrested and indicted for attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
A forensic psychiatric evaluation diagnosed psychosis; defense counsel retained a mental-health expert and later notified the State of intent to assert multiple defenses including insanity (NGRI).
Payne repeatedly told the court she wanted a jury trial and objected to counsel’s filing/motion seeking a pretrial NGRI determination, saying the incident was an accident and she did not consent to an NGRI plea.
On April 7, 2016, the trial court found Payne competent to proceed, held a pretrial NGRI hearing under N.C.G.S. § 15A-959(c) (on defense counsel’s motion with State consent), and after minimal evidence concluded Payne was NGRI.
The trial court’s May 19, 2016 order dismissed the charges “with leave” and ordered commitment under the statutory NGRI commitment scheme; Payne appealed claiming denial of her Sixth Amendment right to direct her defense.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Payne's Argument	Held
Whether counsel (and court) may pursue a pretrial NGRI determination over a competent defendant’s express objection	Trial court may accept a defendant-counsel motion and the court may hold a § 15A-959(c) hearing	Payne argued her Sixth Amendment right to direct her defense forbade counsel/court from invoking NGRI over her objection	Court held a competent defendant has the right to decide whether to pursue NGRI; allowing counsel to obtain pretrial NGRI over Payne’s express refusal violated her Sixth Amendment rights
Effect of competency finding on defendant’s authority to refuse NGRI	Competency finding supports court proceeding with discretionary § 15A-959(c) hearing	Payne contended competence means she may make final strategic choices including rejecting NGRI	Court treated competency as establishing Payne’s right to make that strategic choice; competence does not permit counsel/court to override her decision
Whether the trial court’s NGRI order is an unreviewable acquittal (double jeopardy)	State suggested appellate relief may be limited by commitment procedures and double jeopardy concerns	Payne sought vacatur of the NGRI order and remand for proceedings protecting her rights	Court avoided broad double-jeopardy rule: characterized the order (dismissal “with leave”) as procedural and vacated it without invoking Evans bar to retrial; remanded for new competency hearing and proceedings ensuring Payne’s decision-making rights
Remedy for violation (vacatur/remand)	State argued lack of prejudice because statutory review/commitment safeguards exist	Payne requested vacatur of the NGRI order and remand for appropriate proceedings	Court vacated the NGRI order and remanded for a new competency hearing and for the court to respect Payne’s authority over plea/defense choices if found competent

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (defendant has Sixth Amendment right to conduct own defense)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (competency to stand trial relates to capacity to waive rights and make substantive decisions)
Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (discussion of acquittals and double jeopardy bar to retrial)
Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (acquittal—even erroneous—bars retrial)
Whalem v. United States, 346 F.2d 812 (D.C. Cir. case originally permitting court to inject insanity issue; later criticized/overruled by Marble)
United States v. Marble, 940 F.2d 1543 (D.C. Cir. overruling Whalem; recognizing competent defendants may refuse insanity defense)
State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (counsel may not admit client guilt or waive substantial rights without client consent)
State v. McDowell, 329 N.C. 363 (insanity is an affirmative defense that must be asserted by defendant)
State v. Ali, 329 N.C. 394 (discussing right to counsel and limits on attorney authority)