Florida Court of Appeals reversed a murder and attempted murder conviction after ruling that the trial court erred in its mid-trial determination that defendant was competent to stand trial.
In 1992, Richard Martinez was indicted for 1st degree murder and attempted murder. Subsequently, he was found to be incompetent to stand trial and was committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. During the next four years, numerous psychiatric experts found Martinez's competency in doubt and trial did not commence.
In 1996, his trial began after the trial court deemed him competent following a hearing in which three psychiatric experts presented reports along with live testimony as to his condition. On the second day of trial however, the defense alerted the judge to the fact that Martinez "was slipping" and moved for a new competency determination. Martinez was evaluated by one psychiatric expert over the lunch break who reported that the matter was not clear-cut and that he had doubts as to the defendant's competency. Nonetheless, the judge ruled that Martinez was competent and his trial continued resulting in conviction. Defendant appealed based largely on this ruling.
In Florida, in order for an expert evaluation to constitute evidence adequate to support a trial court's competency determination, it must specifically include a discussion of six factors relating to the defendant's capacities to: (i) appreciate the charges or allegations against him; (ii) appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties, if applicable, that may be imposed in the proceedings against him; (iii) understand the adversary nature of the legal process; (iv) disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue; (v) manifest appropriate courtroom behavior and (vi) testify relevantly.
WHAT AN EXPERT MUST ADDRESS IN A COMPETENCY OPINION (FL)
- Appreciate the charges or allegation against him.
- Appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties that may be imposed in the proceedings against him.
- Understand the adversarial nature of the legal process.
- Disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings.
- Manifest appropriate courtroom behavior.
- Testify relevantly.
In its decision, the Appeals Court found that there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination to let Martinez's trial begin. It was noted however, that such evidence was lacking in the mid-trial ruling as the trial judge relied on incomplete evaluation of a single expert who stated his doubt as to competency and who did not discuss each of the specific factors as required by law. Florida law generally requires a minimum of two experts to evaluate competency, particularly in cases where substantial doubt exists.
Conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered upon a determination that Martinez was, once again, found competent.
