Wood v. State, 81 A.3d 427

Hubert Allen Wood was indicted for the February 2010 stabbing death of Daniel Curran; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and he received life with all but 80 years suspended.
Defense counsel initially requested a DHMH in‑custody competency evaluation based on prior psychiatric admissions and information from Wood’s mother; DHMH attempted an evaluation but Wood refused to speak to the evaluator.
At a May 26, 2011 pretrial hearing, defense counsel (with Wood’s concurrence) withdrew the request for a competency evaluation; the trial judge declared the competency issue moot and proceeded to trial.
Wood appealed, arguing the trial court violated Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 3‑104(a) by permitting withdrawal of the evaluation request without making an on‑the‑record competency determination; he also argued the court erred in denying a jury instruction on provocation.
The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals: (1) withdrawal of the evaluation, combined with the limited record, did not rebut the presumption of competency and the trial court complied with § 3‑104(a); (2) the evidence did not generate a provocation instruction.

Issue	Wood's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had to make an on‑the‑record competency determination after defense withdrew a competency‑evaluation request	Withdrawal does not relieve the court of § 3‑104(a) duties; court should have made an explicit on‑record determination	Withdrawal was permitted; judge made available the evaluation and discussion on the record, and no bona fide doubt existed to trigger an on‑record finding	Withdrawal was permissible; because no bona fide doubt appeared on the record, the competency issue was moot and § 3‑104(a) was satisfied
Whether the trial court erred by denying a jury instruction on legally adequate provocation	Evidence of drinking, argument over pills, victim’s alleged insulting remark about Wood’s mother, and petitioner’s statement that he "snapped" generated some evidence of provocation	Evidence was insufficient: no proof of mutual affray or present ability of victim to cause bodily harm; insults alone do not constitute adequate provocation	Denial was proper; the record lacked the "some evidence" required to support a provocation instruction

Peaks v. State, 419 Md. 239 (discusses competency procedures and record development)
Roberts v. State, 361 Md. 346 (mandates court actions when competency is questioned)
Gregg v. State, 377 Md. 515 (trial judge must raise competency sua sponte if bona fide doubt exists)
Sangster v. State, 312 Md. 560 (legislative purpose of competency statutes)
Treece v. State, 313 Md. 665 (competency determinations must be based on record evidence)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (due process requires competency determinations when doubt exists)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (trial judge must hold competency hearing if evidence raises bona fide doubt)
Girouard v. State, 321 Md. 532 (elements of provocation defense)
Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540 (insulting words alone do not constitute adequate provocation)