Terry Pitchford v. State of Mississippi
240 So. 3d 1061
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Terry Pitchford was tried for capital murder in Feb. 2006, convicted and sentenced to death; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Prior to trial the court ordered a Mississippi State Hospital evaluation; doctors concluded Pitchford was competent, but no formal on-the-record competency hearing occurred and defense counsel claimed lack of advance notice to contest competency.
- In 2013 this Court granted leave for a post-conviction proceeding limited to whether Pitchford was afforded a proper competency hearing and remanded for a retrospective competency hearing.
- A retrospective evidentiary hearing was held in May 2015; Pitchford presented lay witnesses and Dr. Rahn Bailey (who evaluated him in 2006); the State presented the original hospital examiners.
- The trial court found the State experts credible, rejected Dr. Bailey’s opinions, and concluded Pitchford was competent to stand trial in Feb. 2006; PCR was denied and Pitchford appealed.
- The Supreme Court (majority) affirmed, holding a retrospective competency hearing can be adequate where sufficient contemporaneous evidence exists, and that Pitchford was competent in 2006.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a retrospective competency hearing satisfies Rule 9.06 / due process | Pitchford: retrospective hearing is inadequate under Coleman and Rule 9.06; pretrial hearing was required and remedy should be reversal/new trial | State: Coleman distinguished Pitchford; sufficient process occurred in remand hearing and claims are procedurally barred or cured by the 2015 hearing | Majority: Overruled Coleman to the extent inconsistent; retrospective hearing may be adequate when sufficient contemporaneous evidence exists; here it was adequate and due process satisfied |
| Whether State’s experts applied the correct competency standard (Dusky test) | Pitchford: State experts allegedly used improper standard, so their opinions are unreliable | State: Experts used proper standard and contemporaneous evaluations supported competency finding | Held: State experts applied proper standard; the 2006 hospital reports and testimony support competency finding |
| Burden and standard for retrospective proceedings | Pitchford: (implicitly) defendant bears burden to show incompetence; retrospective format inherently unreliable | State: retrospective hearing permissible; once shown meaningfulness, defendant must prove incompetence | Held: Court adopts approach requiring the State to show a meaningful retrospective hearing is possible; then defendant must prove he was most probably incompetent at trial time |
| Procedural-bar / law-of-the-case challenge to remand order | Pitchford: asks this Court to reconsider its prior 2013 remand and Coleman’s guidance | State: majority treats remand as binding and resolves merits; separate concurrence says Pitchford is procedurally barred from relitigating the remand decision | Held: Majority proceeds to overrule Coleman on adequacy of retrospectives; concurrence (Kitchens, J.) would treat reconsideration as procedurally barred and affirm on narrower grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitchford v. State, 45 So. 3d 216 (Miss. 2010) (direct appeal of Pitchford's conviction affirmed)
- Coleman v. State, 127 So. 3d 161 (Miss. 2013) (plurality: retrospective competency hearings inadequate; new trial appropriate remedy)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1975) (Supreme Court on difficulties of nunc pro tunc competency determinations)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (due process forbids trying an incompetent defendant)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competency standard: rational and factual understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
- Sanders v. State, 9 So. 3d 1132 (Miss. 2009) (discussing Rule 9.06 and when competency hearing is required)
- Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027 (Miss. 2014) (held court-ordered evaluation often treated as showing reasonable grounds for hearing)
- Hollie v. State, 174 So. 3d 824 (Miss. 2015) (addressing mandatory hearing requirement after court-ordered evaluation)
- James v. State, 86 So. 3d 286 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (Court of Appeals: retrospective hearing can satisfy due process when sufficient evidence exists)
- Wheat v. Thigpen, 793 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1986) (Fifth Circuit: retrospective hearings acceptable if sufficient data ensures reliability)