Turner, Albert James
422 S.W.3d 676
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Albert James Turner was convicted of capital murder for killing his wife and mother‑in‑law; jury answered special issues mandating death. Appeal reached the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Early competency evaluations (May–June 2010) by Drs. Gollaher and Axelrad found Turner competent but noted possible paranoid/delusional thinking; Axelrad reported mild impairment in engaging with counsel.
- Over the next year, Turner's relationship with defense counsel deteriorated: threats to counsel, grievances, refusal to cooperate, and insistence on a delusional theory implicating the local mayor. Counsel sought a formal competency hearing multiple times.
- In April–May 2011 the trial court conducted informal inquiries and ordered an additional evaluation by Dr. Almeida, who could not conclude incompetence and observed no significant change from earlier exams; the court denied a formal competency trial.
- Turner testified at trial (denying responsibility) against counsel's advice; defense continued to argue diminished intent for the second killing. After conviction and sentence, Turner appealed arguing the trial court erred by not ordering a formal (retrospective) competency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turner) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying a formal competency trial after informal inquiry | Turner's counsel argued Turner’s paranoid delusions undermined his ability to rationally consult and choose legal strategy; there was “some evidence” supporting incompetence and a formal hearing was required | State argued earlier expert reports found Turner competent; mere disagreement with counsel and noncooperation do not establish incompetency | Court: Reversed on this point — informal inquiry produced more than a scintilla of evidence that Turner may have been incompetent; remand for trial court to determine feasibility of retrospective competency trial and, if feasible, to hold one |
| Standard for triggering a formal competency trial | Turner: evidence of paranoid delusions that interfered with rational consultation satisfied statutory “some evidence” threshold | State: pointed to competing expert opinions and lack of definitive current diagnosis to deny formal hearing | Court: Applied statutory test; when put aside competency indicators, there was still some evidence supporting incompetency and thus a formal trial was required |
| Whether prior competency evaluations foreclose later hearing absent changed circumstances | Turner: no prior judicial adjudication existed; new evidence (escalation of delusions and breakdown with counsel) justified a formal hearing | State: relied on prior experts’ conclusions and Almeida’s report that functioning had not significantly changed | Court: Trial court erred to require a change from prior evaluations because no prior adjudication existed; new evidence sufficed to require a formal hearing |
| Whether defendant’s decision to testify impacted competence analysis | Turner: his delusional decision to testify against counsel’s advice illustrated incompetence to make fundamental choices | State: framed defendant’s testimony as voluntary and evidence of competence | Court: Noted the decision to testify is a fundamental personal right and that delusion‑driven choices may indicate incompetence; reinforced need for formal inquiry to assess such effects |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (due process forbids trying an incompetent defendant)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (constitutional competency standard: factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (procedural safeguards required to protect incompetent defendants)
- Montoya v. State, 291 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (interpretation of suggestion/bona fide doubt triggering informal inquiry)
- Ex parte LaHood, 401 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (‘‘some evidence’’ means more than a scintilla when assessing need for formal competency hearing)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (States may require counsel for defendants who are competent to stand trial but not competent to represent themselves)