WILLIAM ALLEN KING v. STATE OF FLORIDA
263 So. 3d 244
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- William A. King, previously adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity in 1987–88 and committed, was confined at the Florida Civil Commitment Center after classification as a sexually violent predator.
- In June 2015 King was charged with battery on a FCCC staff member; he proceeded to jury trial and was convicted.
- The trial court twice appointed competency examiners after finding reasonable grounds to doubt competency but never held a competency hearing or entered an order finding King competent to proceed.
- King requested jury instruction that he had not been judicially restored to legal sanity; the court instructed the jury both that defendants are presumed sane and that if previously adjudged insane and not judicially restored the jury should assume insanity (the court refused an instruction explicitly stating King had not been restored).
- The State acknowledged the competency-hearing omission; the court permitted both parties to argue the presumption of insanity and the State presented witnesses to rebut that presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (King) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court failed to hold a competency hearing after ordering evaluations | Court erred; a competency hearing and ruling are required and King's conviction should be vacated | Concedes error; urges nunc pro tunc competency hearing rather than automatic new trial | Reversed and remanded for a nunc pro tunc competency hearing; new trial only if retroactive determination impossible |
| Failure to instruct jury that King had not been judicially restored to sanity (presumption of insanity) | Court should have affirmatively instructed jury that King was entitled to a rebuttable presumption of insanity because he had been adjudged insane and not judicially restored | Trial court gave both general sanity and the alternative presumption instruction; declined to state affirmatively that King had not been restored; State proceeded as if presumption applied and rebutted it at trial | Court found instructional error but held it harmless given record (both parties and the court treated the presumption as applying and State rebutted it) |
Key Cases Cited
- Charles v. State, 223 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (trial court must hold competency hearing and rule after ordering evaluations)
- Golloman v. State, 226 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (defendant has due process right to independent finding of competency)
- Zern v. State, 191 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (competency hearing requirement is not waivable; failure is fundamental error)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (remedy for competency-hearing error is new trial unless retroactive determination is feasible)
- Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (retrospective competency determination may be permissible when contemporaneous witnesses and experts can testify)
- Wells v. State, 98 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1957) (when record undisputedly shows no judicial restoration, court must instruct jury affirmatively on presumption of insanity)
- Johnson v. State, 118 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960) (presumption of insanity is for the court to apply when not controverted; jury decides whether rebuttal evidence overcomes it)
- Horace v. Culver, 111 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1959) (adjudication of insanity raises presumption that the condition continues until shown otherwise)