Xavier Tyrone Moore v. State of Florida
204 So. 3d 604
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Xavier Tyrone Moore convicted of third-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; appealed judgment and sentence.
- During trial, Moore exhibited inexplicable behavior and testimony that concerned defense counsel and mirrored earlier disruptive conduct.
- Defense counsel moved for a mistrial and contemporaneously requested a competency hearing based on Moore’s courtroom behavior and testimony.
- The trial court denied the motion for mistrial and did not conduct a competency evaluation.
- The First District reversed, finding the record contained justifiable grounds requiring a competency evaluation upon defense counsel’s request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying motion for mistrial and competency hearing after defendant’s bizarre testimony | Moore argued his testimony and prior behavior created reasonable doubt about competency, requiring a hearing | State argued no competency hearing or mistrial was required and conviction should stand | Court held trial court abused discretion by not ordering competency evaluation and reversed/remanded |
| Whether a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation could cure the error | Moore implicitly argued retrospective evaluation required if contemporaneous evidence existed | State implicitly argued a nunc pro tunc finding could validate the original trial if evidence supported competency | Court held a nunc pro tunc evaluation is appropriate if sufficient contemporaneous expert/lay evidence exists; otherwise court must adjudicate present competency and, if competent, grant a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 180 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (once reasonable grounds to question competency exist, court must hold a competency hearing)
- Cotton v. State, 177 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (discusses duty to order competency evaluation when reasonable doubt arises)
- Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (addresses when a nunc pro tunc competency evaluation may obviate a new trial)
- Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2014) (explains requirements for retrospective competency hearings and available evidence)
- Mason v. State, 489 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1986) (if retrospective evaluation cannot assure due process, the court must grant a new trial)