sanity hearing in Louisiana

1985State v. Guidry, supra. In State v. Charles, 450 So.2d 1287 (La.1984), defendant argued that a continuance should have been granted to avoid trial of a case on the same day as a sanity hearing.

1985The Supreme Court disagreed and stated that defense counsel had notice of the trial and "might have requested a sanity hearing in advance of trial." State v. Charles, supra, at 1290 .

2010State v. Nomey, 613 So.2d at 162 .

1996In State v. Nomey, 613 So.2d 157 (La. 1993), the supreme court held that the trial court’s acceptance of defendant’s guflty plea prior to holding a sanity hearing violated the defendant’s due process rights.

1999They will be reviewed in an appendix which will not be published but will comprise part of the record in this case. [2] At the sanity hearing, the parties stipulated that Dr. Quillin is an expert in the field of clinical psychology and that Dr. MacMahon is an expert in the field of clinical psychiatry. [3] In Bennett, 345 So.2d at 1138 , this Court noted that the facts to consider in determining an accused's ability to assist in his defense include: whether he is able to recall and relate facts pertaining to his actions and whereabouts at certain times; whether he is able to assist counsel in

1981State v. Coco, supra; State v. Bennett, supra. Both doctors who testified at the sanity hearing indicated that the defendant's examinations were unproductive.

1992State v. Sharlow, 493 So.2d 213 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986), writ denied 496 So.2d 329 (La.1986).

1991State v. Sharlow, 493 So.2d 213 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 329 (La.1986), citing State v. Charles, 450 So.2d 1287 (La.1984).

2008As the court pointed out in State v. Bickham, supra, there is a presumption of capacity to proceed.

1991As the court pointed out in State v. Bickham, supra, there is a presumption of capacity to proceed.

1992State v. Sharlow, 493 So.2d 213 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986), writ denied 496 So.2d 329 (La.1986).

1991State v. Sharlow, 493 So.2d 213 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986), writ denied, 496 So.2d 329 (La.1986), citing State v. Charles, 450 So.2d 1287 (La.1984).

1984After having been found competent to stand trial and a motion to suppress the testimony of eye witnesses to the crime was denied, on December 2, 1983, while reserving his right to an appeal pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), he pleaded guilty to a violation of R.S. 14:69B(3), i.e., receiving a stolen thing valued in excess of $500.00 and was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

1981See C.Cr.P.Art. 841; State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976); State v. White, 404 So.2d 1202 (La.1981).

2014In State v. Ford, 41,949 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 957 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 07-1377 (La.1/7/08), 973 So.2d 733 , the defendant challenged his guilty plea on the grounds that he was not adequately informed of his right to trial by jury; the court informed him that he had a right to “have a trial.” This court validated the plea after determining that the defendant had been informed of his right to a jury trial at an earlier sanity hearing.

2014In State v. Ford, 41,949 (La.App.2d Cir.5/9/07), 957 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 07-1377 (La.1/7/08), 973 So.2d 733 , the defendant challenged his guilty plea on the grounds that he was not adequately informed of his right to trial by jury; the court informed him that he had a right to “have a trial.” This court validated the plea after determining that the defendant had been informed of his right to a jury trial at an earlier sanity hearing.

2012On September 26, 2011, Defendant entered a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to the amended charge of forcible rape.

2012On September 26, 2011, Defendant entered a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to the amended charge of forcible rape.

2009State v. Carney, 25,518 (La.App.2d Cir.10/13/95), 663 So.2d 470 .

2007Any issue regarding the failure of defense counsel to have properly asserted a sanity defense is a matter which may be considered through post-conviction relief proceedings under La.C.Cr.P. art. 924, et seq. [ See, State v. Hart, 96-697 (La.3/7/97), 691 So.2d 651, 661 , where the Louisiana Supreme Court relegated defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an insanity defense to post conviction relief.] Of note, defense counsel advised the trial court prior to trial that it was abandoning an insanity plea after their expert could not say with medical certainty that

2004We held, then, that although a sanity commission had already been appointed to examine the defendant, the purported effects of a change in the defendant's medication and the testimony presented subsequent to the sanity hearing gave the trial judge sufficient reason to order further inquiry into the defendant's ability to communicate with counsel. [7] Thus, it was the "trial court's absolute failure to investigate these claims [of legal incapacity], which were substantiated by objective medical evidence, that cause[d] us to determine he abused his discretion in failing to investigate defense cl

2004Knoll, recused. [1] The nature and specifics of the crime for which Snyder was convicted are discussed in State v. Snyder 98-1078 (La.4/14/99), 750 So.2d 832 . [2] For a transcript of the relevant testimony from the sanity hearing, refer to State v. Snyder 750 So.2d at 848 . [3] When questioned about the defendant's medication, Dr. DePrato advised that due to the side effects caused by Sinequan, including urinary retention and constipation, he was given a low dosage; and while this dosage had helped the defendant's symptoms of depression, it did not totally alleviate these problems.

2003See discussion of assignment of error number one, supra. Importantly, Dr. Benoit's penalty phase testimony reiterated his finding that the defendant's intelligence test scores fell "in the low borderline range, close to mild mental retardation." [13] The penalty phase verdict forms reveal that the jury returned the sentence of death after finding the following aggravating circumstances, expressed in quotation marks below: Count 1—the first degree murder of Rhonada Marie Guillory: "(1) More than one person (victim)." Count 2—the first degree murder of Priscilla Ann Guillory: "(1) More than one

2002Id.

1999In a similar case, State v. Payne, 586 So.2d 652 (La.App. 5 Cir.1991), at sentencing, defense counsel stated that she did not believe the defendant understood the proceedings, but did not move for a sanity hearing.

1996Beauchamp, 510 So.2d at 29 ; and State v. Charles, 450 So.2d 1287 (La.1984).

1996State v. Bell, 543 So.2d 1013 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), and the cases cited therein.

1987State v. Charles, 450 So.2d 1287 (La.1984); State v. Nicholas, 462 So.2d at 1298 ; State v. Sharlow, 493 So.2d at 221 .

1985State v. Guidry, supra. In State v. Charles, 450 So.2d 1287 (La.1984), defendant argued that a continuance should have been granted to avoid trial of a case on the same day as a sanity hearing.

1981State v. Coco, supra; State v. Bennett, supra. Both doctors who testified at the sanity hearing indicated that the defendant's examinations were unproductive.

1980However, both participated as principals, as distinguished from being the actual perpetrator, in the respective crimes committed with Colin Clark and Robert Williams. [4] State v. Collins, 378 So.2d 928 (La.1980); State v. Allen, 380 So.2d 28 (La.1980); State v. Foote, 379 So.2d 1058 (La.1980); State v. Spooner, 368 So.2d 1086 (La.1979). [5] State v. Edwards, 375 So.2d 1365 (La.1979); State v. Howard, 377 So.2d 1226 (La.1980); State v. Glover, 381 So.2d 832 (La.1980); State v. Holmes, No. 65,846 (appeal pending).

1980However, both participated as principals, as distinguished from being the actual perpetrator, in the respective crimes committed with Colin Clark and Robert Williams. [4] State v. Collins, 378 So.2d 928 (La.1980); State v. Allen, 380 So.2d 28 (La.1980); State v. Foote, 379 So.2d 1058 (La.1980); State v. Spooner, 368 So.2d 1086 (La.1979). [5] State v. Edwards, 375 So.2d 1365 (La.1979); State v. Howard, 377 So.2d 1226 (La.1980); State v. Glover, 381 So.2d 832 (La.1980); State v. Holmes, No. 65,846 (appeal pending).

1980However, both participated as principals, as distinguished from being the actual perpetrator, in the respective crimes committed with Colin Clark and Robert Williams. [4] State v. Collins, 378 So.2d 928 (La.1980); State v. Allen, 380 So.2d 28 (La.1980); State v. Foote, 379 So.2d 1058 (La.1980); State v. Spooner, 368 So.2d 1086 (La.1979). [5] State v. Edwards, 375 So.2d 1365 (La.1979); State v. Howard, 377 So.2d 1226 (La.1980); State v. Glover, 381 So.2d 832 (La.1980); State v. Holmes, No. 65,846 (appeal pending).

1980However, both participated as principals, as distinguished from being the actual perpetrator, in the respective crimes committed with Colin Clark and Robert Williams. [4] State v. Collins, 378 So.2d 928 (La.1980); State v. Allen, 380 So.2d 28 (La.1980); State v. Foote, 379 So.2d 1058 (La.1980); State v. Spooner, 368 So.2d 1086 (La.1979). [5] State v. Edwards, 375 So.2d 1365 (La.1979); State v. Howard, 377 So.2d 1226 (La.1980); State v. Glover, 381 So.2d 832 (La.1980); State v. Holmes, No. 65,846 (appeal pending).

1980However, both participated as principals, as distinguished from being the actual perpetrator, in the respective crimes committed with Colin Clark and Robert Williams. [4] State v. Collins, 378 So.2d 928 (La.1980); State v. Allen, 380 So.2d 28 (La.1980); State v. Foote, 379 So.2d 1058 (La.1980); State v. Spooner, 368 So.2d 1086 (La.1979). [5] State v. Edwards, 375 So.2d 1365 (La.1979); State v. Howard, 377 So.2d 1226 (La.1980); State v. Glover, 381 So.2d 832 (La.1980); State v. Holmes, No. 65,846 (appeal pending).

1980However, both participated as principals, as distinguished from being the actual perpetrator, in the respective crimes committed with Colin Clark and Robert Williams. [4] State v. Collins, 378 So.2d 928 (La.1980); State v. Allen, 380 So.2d 28 (La.1980); State v. Foote, 379 So.2d 1058 (La.1980); State v. Spooner, 368 So.2d 1086 (La.1979). [5] State v. Edwards, 375 So.2d 1365 (La.1979); State v. Howard, 377 So.2d 1226 (La.1980); State v. Glover, 381 So.2d 832 (La.1980); State v. Holmes, No. 65,846 (appeal pending).