mandatory competency hearing in Ohio

2025“But a court’s failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is not a basis for automatic reversal.” Id. at ¶ 14. “[T]he failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” Id., quoting State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 (1986). {¶99} Here, it appears that Gilbert raised issues related to his competence prior to trial.

2025Instead, “the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” Id.; see also State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359 (1995), quoting Bock at 110 (the right to a competency hearing “rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee where the record contains ‘sufficient indicia of incompetence,’ such that an inquiry into the defendant’s competency is necessary to ensure the defendant’s right to a fair trial”). {¶ 23} Because incompetency is measured by the statutory criteria, i.e., the ability to understand the n

2025Instead, “the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” Id.; see also State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359 (1995), quoting Bock at 110 (the right to a competency hearing “rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee where the record contains ‘sufficient indicia of incompetence,’ such that an inquiry into the defendant’s competency is necessary to ensure the defendant’s right to a fair trial”). {¶ 23} Because incompetency is measured by the statutory criteria, i.e., the ability to understand the n

2023Rather, “the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” Id.; see also State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359 , 650 N.E.2d 433 (1995), quoting Bock at 110 (the right to a competency hearing “rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee where the record contains ‘sufficient indicia of incompetence,’ such that an inquiry into the defendant’s competency is necessary to ensure the defendant’s right to a fair trial”). {¶ 15} We explained in Bock that incompetency is measured by the statutory criteria—the

2023In a recent capital case, I criticized the majority opinion for concluding that a competency evaluation was not required for a defendant whose “experienced attorney—by self-proclamation— ha[d] adjudged his client to be competent based on counsel’s stated ability to recognize mental illness, even when that client may not [have] outwardly demonstrate[d] visible symptoms of mental illness to nonclinical laypersons during the limited time they interact[ed].” State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445 , 2021-Ohio-3566 , 179 N.E.3d 1216, ¶ 214 (Brunner, J., dissenting). 22 January Term, 2023 defendant was

2023In a recent capital case, I criticized the majority opinion for concluding that a competency evaluation was not required for a defendant whose “experienced attorney—by self-proclamation— ha[d] adjudged his client to be competent based on counsel’s stated ability to recognize mental illness, even when that client may not [have] outwardly demonstrate[d] visible symptoms of mental illness to nonclinical laypersons during the limited time they interact[ed].” State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445 , 2021-Ohio-3566 , 179 N.E.3d 1216, ¶ 214 (Brunner, J., dissenting). 22 January Term, 2023 defendant was

2023Applying the standard that this court announced in State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986), the court of appeals explained that a trial court’s failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error when the record fails to reveal “sufficient indicia of incompetency.” 2022-Ohio-969 at ¶ 27 .

2018We find that the trial court was not required to hold a competency hearing because the issue as to McNeir’s competency was not properly maintained and, therefore, not properly before the trial court. {¶27} Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that McNeir did properly raise and maintain his request for a competency assessment, as stated above, “the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” State v. Bock, 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 (1986).

2020Nevertheless, “the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” Id. at 110 , following Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) and Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975).

2008We recognize the express language of the statute requires the trial court to hold a competency hearing, however, we have already noted that there were not sufficient indicia of incompetence to call into doubt appellant's competency to stand trial. "[I]t is clear that the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetence." State v. Bock (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 108 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 , citing, Drope v. Missouri (1975), 420 U.S. 162 , 180 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 908 .

2025See Mills at ¶ 13 (failure 8. of defendant’s attorney to raise the issue after the initial request for a competency examination did not excuse the trial court from its duty to hold a competency hearing). {¶ 22} Although clearly error, “a court’s failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is not a basis for automatic reversal.” Mills at ¶ 14 , citing Bock at 110 .

2024In State v. Mills, 2023-Ohio-4716 , the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing was a harmless error.

2011“The failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” State v. Bock (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 . {¶ 28} “A trial court, in making a determination of whether to hold a sua sponte hearing concerning the accused's competence to stand trial, should consider the following: (1) doubts expressed by counsel as to the defendant’s competence; (2) evidence of irrational behavior; (3) the defendant’s demeanor at trial; and (4) prior medical opinion relating to competence to stand trial.” State v. Ru

2011“The failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.” State v. Bock (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 110 , 502 N.E.2d 1016 . {¶ 28} “A trial court, in making a determination of whether to hold a sua sponte hearing concerning the accused's competence to stand trial, should consider the following: (1) doubts expressed by counsel as to the defendant’s competence; (2) evidence of irrational behavior; (3) the defendant’s demeanor at trial; and (4) prior medical opinion relating to competence to stand trial.” State v. Ru

2025Importantly, “[a] reviewing court ‘must consider “the totality of the evidence,” including “both evidence of incompetency and evidence of competency,” to determine whether the trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing was harmless.’” Id. at ¶ 19, -8- Case No. 9-24-34 quoting Mills at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Hough, 2022-Ohio-4436, ¶ 59 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). {¶19} In this case, the record reflects that Melendez was deemed incompetent to stand trial following his first trial on February 27, 2023.

2024See also State v. Lamp, 59 Ohio App.2d 125, 128 (9th Dist.1977) (the right to a R.C. 2945.37(B) competency hearing was waived where counsel stipulated to competency). {¶18} If the issue of competency is raised before trial and remains at issue, the “failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is not a basis for automatic reversal.” Mills at ¶ 14, citing Bock at 110 .

2024“Rather, ‘the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency.’” Id. {¶19} The Supreme Court recently declined to reconsider the sufficient indicia of incompetency standard in Mills.

2023See Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362-363 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996), quoting Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 283 , 110 S.Ct. 2841 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) (“The ‘more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear [when attempting to rebut the presumption of competency], the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision’ ”); see also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (“the function of legal process is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions”).

2023See Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362-363 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996), quoting Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 283 , 110 S.Ct. 2841 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) (“The ‘more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear [when attempting to rebut the presumption of competency], the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision’ ”); see also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (“the function of legal process is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions”).

2023Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has instructed that as a constitutional matter, “a State may presume that the defendant is competent and require him to shoulder the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.” Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 355 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996). {¶ 20} Given the different presumptions that apply to competency and 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO innocence, we decline Mills’s invitation to graft the criminal proof-beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard onto harmless-error review of a trial court’s failure to hold a mandatory co

2023Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has instructed that as a constitutional matter, “a State may presume that the defendant is competent and require him to shoulder the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.” Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 355 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996). {¶ 20} Given the different presumptions that apply to competency and 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO innocence, we decline Mills’s invitation to graft the criminal proof-beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard onto harmless-error review of a trial court’s failure to hold a mandatory co

2023See Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362-363 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996), quoting Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 283 , 110 S.Ct. 2841 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) (“The ‘more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear [when attempting to rebut the presumption of competency], the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision’ ”); see also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (“the function of legal process is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions”).

2023See Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 362-363 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996), quoting Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 283 , 110 S.Ct. 2841 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) (“The ‘more stringent the burden of proof a party must bear [when attempting to rebut the presumption of competency], the more that party bears the risk of an erroneous decision’ ”); see also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (“the function of legal process is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions”).

2022R.C. 2945.37(G); see also State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2008-Ohio-2762 , ¶45 (“A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial, and the burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not competent.”). {¶27} R.C. 2945.37(B) provides that “[i]f the issue [of competency] is raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue * * *.” However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “it is clear that the failure to hold a mandatory competency hearing is harmless error where the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia o