CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Presumptions & Burden of Proof
......Criminal Presumptions-Burden of Proof
.........Sanity & Mental Competence
16 Cards On This Topic:

Sanity presumed if D fails to enter plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Trial ct. had no duty to initiate competency proceedings where no substantial evidence D was incompetent, no qualified W so testified, and his disruptive actions and decisions did not suggest he could not participate rationally in his defense.

Once the feasibility of retrospective mental competency hearing is determined, placing burden on criminal D to prove he was incompetent when tried is not DP violation.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting at competency hearing D's own tape describing string of murders in graphic detail as probative and relevant to issue of his feigning incompetence.

Cal.'s formulation of the competency standard as set forth in CALJIC No. 4.10 comports with federal due process requirements.

D not entitled to modified instruction CALJIC No. 4.10 that he meet competency criteria for entire capital trial: to ask jury to predict D's competency throughout trial of indeterminate length would insist on speculation.

As juries and Ws may disagree over whether D's communicative act or statement reflects competency or not, instruction cautioning jury to view D's admissions with caution should be given only on request.

Instruction telling jury it should consider "reasons" supporting E's opinion on D's competency would not have led jury to think term encompassed the factual assumptions underlying E's opinion.

Fact that D's trial counsel testified as to his mental state in competency trial, did not require him to withdraw as counsel and testify during penalty phase, and no conflict of interest arose.

For hearing on D's recovery of mental competence, Pen. Code §1372 establishes, impliedly, a presumption that D is mentally competent unless proved by preponderance of evidence not to be.

Jury instruction that D presumed of sound mind does not interfere with jury's consideration that D under influence of drugs or alcohol at time of offense.

Court properly refused to let D represent himself where he repeatedly refused interview by expert; no dismissal of all but one conviction for attempting to dissuade where he made 6 calls urging sister to persuade V not to testify.

Trial court should have stopped trial and instituted PC 1368 proceedings where D's stmts and Es' reports were substantial evidence of reasonable doubt as to whether D had decompensated and become incompetent.

Where substantial evidence shows substantial change of circumstances or new evidence raises serious doubt about validity of original competency finding, regardless of conflicting evidence, court must hold new hearing.

In case of kidnapping, ADW, attempted criminal threats, and corporal injury on spouse, State did not have burden to prove D's sanity beyond reasonable doubt.

Although D did not present insanity defense, jury instruction that D conclusively presumed sane at time of crime harmless.