rational defense in North Carolina

12 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1968–1989 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Propstgreen nc · 1968 · cited in 10 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1971–1989 2 sentences 1989“Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment.” State v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 69 , 161 S.E. 2d 560, 566 (1968). 1989“Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment.” State v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 69 , 161 S.E. 2d 560, 566 (1968).	6	10
State v. . Haywoodgreen nc · 1886 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1968–1989 2 sentences 1989Over 100 years ago this Court noted, “[I]t is most obviously fitting and proper . . . that the defendant’s capacity to enter upon a trial . . . should be determined before he is put to trial; for the trial would amount to nothing if the defendant has not the required capacity to defend himself against the charge.” State v. Hayward, 94 N.C. 847, 854 (1886). 1968Besides, the blending of the inquiries, by allowing evidence pertinent to one, and incompetent to the other, notwithstanding the caution the Judge may give as to its consideration, may tend to confuse the minds of the jury, and to do injustice to the defendant.” Although this Court, in State v. Haywood, supra, in State v. Sandlin, 156 N.C. 624 , 72 S.E. 203 , and in State v. Sullivan, supra, held permissible the submission of an issue as to. a defendant’s present mental capacity to plead to the indictment and to conduct a rational defense simultaneously with an issue as to whether defendant is	1	2
State v. Pottergreen nc · 1974 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Chief Justice Bobbitt in the recent case of State v. Potter, 285 N.C. 238, 247 , 204 S.E. 2d 649, 655 (1974), reiterated the following rule, which governs the determination of whether a defendant has sufficient mental capacity to plead to the indictment and to conduct a rational defense: “In determining a defendant’s capacity to stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate with his counsel to the end that any available defense may 1974Chief Justice Bobbitt in the recent case of State v. Potter, 285 N.C. 238, 247 , 204 S.E. 2d 649, 655 (1974), reiterated the following rule, which governs the determination of whether a defendant has sufficient mental capacity to plead to the indictment and to conduct a rational defense: “In determining a defendant’s capacity to stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate with his counsel to the end that any available defense may	1	1
State v. Jonesgreen nc · 1971 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974"In determining a defendant's capacity to stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate with his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed." 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 63 (1965); accord, State v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 70 , 161 S.E.2d 560, 566 (1968); State v. Jones, 278 N.C. 259, 266 , 179 S.E.2d 433, 438 (1971); 2 Strong, N.C.Index 2d, Criminal Law § 29. 1974"In determining a defendant's capacity to stand trial, the test is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate with his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed." 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 63 (1965); accord, State v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 70 , 161 S.E.2d 560, 566 (1968); State v. Jones, 278 N.C. 259, 266 , 179 S.E.2d 433, 438 (1971); 2 Strong, N.C.Index 2d, Criminal Law § 29.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. . Khoury neutral nc · 1908 2 sentences 1974Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment. . . . ‘ (T)he defendant’s capacity to enter upon a trial, should be determined before he is put upon the trial;. . . .'" See also State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158 , 95 S.E. 2d 548 ; State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251 , 49 S.E. 2d 458 ; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454 , 62 S.E. 638 . 1974Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment. . . . ‘ (T)he defendant’s capacity to enter upon a trial, should be determined before he is put upon the trial;. . . .'" See also State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158 , 95 S.E. 2d 548 ; State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251 , 49 S.E. 2d 458 ; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454 , 62 S.E. 638 .	2	1968–1974
State v. . Sullivan neutral nc · 1948 2 sentences 1974Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment. . . . ‘ (T)he defendant’s capacity to enter upon a trial, should be determined before he is put upon the trial;. . . .'" See also State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158 , 95 S.E. 2d 548 ; State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251 , 49 S.E. 2d 458 ; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454 , 62 S.E. 638 . 1974Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment. . . . ‘ (T)he defendant’s capacity to enter upon a trial, should be determined before he is put upon the trial;. . . .'" See also State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158 , 95 S.E. 2d 548 ; State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251 , 49 S.E. 2d 458 ; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454 , 62 S.E. 638 .	2	1968–1974
State v. Moore green nc · 1956 2 sentences 1974Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment. . . . ‘ (T)he defendant’s capacity to enter upon a trial, should be determined before he is put upon the trial;. . . .'" See also State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158 , 95 S.E. 2d 548 ; State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251 , 49 S.E. 2d 458 ; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454 , 62 S.E. 638 . 1974Whether defendant is able to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense should be determined prior to the trial of defendant for the crime charged in the indictment. . . . ‘ (T)he defendant’s capacity to enter upon a trial, should be determined before he is put upon the trial;. . . .'" See also State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158 , 95 S.E. 2d 548 ; State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251 , 49 S.E. 2d 458 ; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454 , 62 S.E. 638 .	1	1974–1974
State v. . Sandlin green nc · 1911 2 sentences 1968Besides, the blending of the inquiries, by allowing evidence pertinent to one, and incompetent to the other, notwithstanding the caution the Judge may give as to its consideration, may tend to confuse the minds of the jury, and to do injustice to the defendant.” Although this Court, in State v. Haywood, supra, in State v. Sandlin, 156 N.C. 624 , 72 S.E. 203 , and in State v. Sullivan, supra, held permissible the submission of an issue as to. a defendant’s present mental capacity to plead to the indictment and to conduct a rational defense simultaneously with an issue as to whether defendant is 1968Besides, the blending of the inquiries, by allowing evidence pertinent to one, and incompetent to the other, notwithstanding the caution the Judge may give as to its consideration, may tend to confuse the minds of the jury, and to do injustice to the defendant.” Although this Court, in State v. Haywood, supra, in State v. Sandlin, 156 N.C. 624 , 72 S.E. 203 , and in State v. Sullivan, supra, held permissible the submission of an issue as to. a defendant’s present mental capacity to plead to the indictment and to conduct a rational defense simultaneously with an issue as to whether defendant is	1	1968–1968

Where else courts name it

PA 78 (1928–2024) MS 69 (1912–2023) NE 53 (1915–2025) CA 40 (1914–2023) TX 32 (1907–2023) NJ 16 (1854–2025) IL 15 (1881–2018) IN 14 (1889–2001) OK 13 (1909–1989) NC 12 (1968–1989) NY 11 (1912–2023) NM 11 (1955–2012) MI 8 (1976–2026) TN 8 (1955–2024) KY 5 (1867–2001) OH 5 (1914–2026) GA 4 (1960–2024) LA 4 (1953–2017) MO 3 (1904–1980) FL 3 (1935–2003) CT 3 (2004–2016) AL 3 (1924–2011) KS 3 (1904–1959) DC 3 (1985–2007) MA 2 (1976–1979) AR 2 (1923–2013) WV 2 (1944–1980) RI 2 (1962–2008) MD 2 (1937–1961) WI 2 (2002–2006) MT 2 (1992–1993) IA 2 (1921–1978) NH 2 (1819–2013) UT 2 (1997–2010) VA 2 (1996–2005)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check