rational defense in Mississippi

2023Skinner asserts that all this information was sufficient for the trial court to have “reasonable grounds to believe Skinner was mentally incompetent,” MRCrP 12.2(a), so as to require Skinner to undergo a mental examination. “[W]hen it appears to the trial court that there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the trial should not proceed until the defendant’s mental condition has been investigated and it appears that he is sufficiently rational to make a defense.” Emanuel v. State, 412 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Miss. 1982); see also Richardson v. State, 767 So. 2d

2020Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968, 1007 (Miss. 2007) (“Where there is a serious question about the sanity or competency of a defendant to stand trial, ‘it naturally devolves upon the defendant to go forward with the evidence to show his probable incapacity to make a rational defense.’” (quoting Emanuel v. State, 412 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Miss. 1982))).

2008"When the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, this Court will not overturn that finding unless the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Dunn v. State, 693 So.2d 1333, 1341 (Miss.1997). ¶ 10.

1999“When the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the Court will not overturn that finding unless the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Id. (citing Dunn v. State, 693 So.2d 1333, 1341 (Miss.1997)) (other citation omitted). ¶ 9.

2023Skinner asserts that all this information was sufficient for the trial court to have “reasonable grounds to believe Skinner was mentally incompetent,” MRCrP 12.2(a), so as to require Skinner to undergo a mental examination. “[W]hen it appears to the trial court that there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the trial should not proceed until the defendant’s mental condition has been investigated and it appears that he is sufficiently rational to make a defense.” Emanuel v. State, 412 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Miss. 1982); see also Richardson v. State, 767 So. 2d

2013After hearing all the evidence, the court shall weigh the evidence and make a determination of whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. ¶ 36. “[T]o warrant a mental evaluation, the trial court must find from the evidence that there is a probability, not a mere possibility, that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense.” Staten v. State, 989 So.2d 938, 946 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Richardson v. State, 767 So.2d 195, 203 (¶ 41) (Miss.2000)).

1999The burden is on the defendant to persuade the trial judge that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a mental examination. "[W]hen the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the Court will not overturn that finding unless the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Dunn v. State, 693 So.2d 1333, 1341 (Miss.1997); Laney v. State, 486 So.2d 1242, 1244-45 (Miss.1986). ¶ 8.

1999As the Mississippi Supreme Court points out, "when the *857 trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the Court will not overturn that finding unless the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Dunn v. State, 693 So.2d 1333, 1341 (Miss.1997), citing Laney v. State, 486 So.2d 1242, 1244-45 (Miss.1986). ¶ 9.

2023We recognize that in McGinnis v. State, 241 Miss. 883, 892 , 133 So. 2d 399, 402 (1961), which Skinner cites, the supreme court found that “the affidavit of the [defendant’s] attorneys was sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the defendant was incapable of conferring with his attorneys and taking the stand or otherwise making a rational defense.” But in McGinnis, the supreme court specifically observed that the State offered no evidence at all to refute the affidavit with respect to the defendant’s competency to stand trial.

2023We recognize that in McGinnis v. State, 241 Miss. 883, 892 , 133 So. 2d 399, 402 (1961), which Skinner cites, the supreme court found that “the affidavit of the [defendant’s] attorneys was sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the defendant was incapable of conferring with his attorneys and taking the stand or otherwise making a rational defense.” But in McGinnis, the supreme court specifically observed that the State offered no evidence at all to refute the affidavit with respect to the defendant’s competency to stand trial.

2017In Williams v. State, 205 Miss. 515, 524-25 , 39 So.2d 3, 4 (1949), this Court held that the trial of a mentally incompetent defendant is a due process violation, adjuring that “We urge upon the trial courts to obsérve this constitutional right of defendants,- with meticulous care, and submit to the jury, preliminarily, the issue of the defendant’s sanity in all cases where there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense.” See also Jaquith v. Beckwith, 248 Miss. 491, 500 , 157 So.2d 403, 407 (1963) (holding that the issue of mental competence is determined by a

2017In Williams v. State, 205 Miss. 515, 524-25 , 39 So.2d 3, 4 (1949), this Court held that the trial of a mentally incompetent defendant is a due process violation, adjuring that “We urge upon the trial courts to obsérve this constitutional right of defendants,- with meticulous care, and submit to the jury, preliminarily, the issue of the defendant’s sanity in all cases where there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense.” See also Jaquith v. Beckwith, 248 Miss. 491, 500 , 157 So.2d 403, 407 (1963) (holding that the issue of mental competence is determined by a

2017In this case, after the trial court inquired about the status of the mental evaluation, defense counsel should have requested the competency hearing and competency determination required by the rule. 73 that the trial of a mentally incompetent defendant is a due process violation, adjuring that “We urge upon the trial courts to observe this constitutional right of defendants, with meticulous care, and submit to the jury, preliminarily, the issue of the defendant’s sanity in all cases where there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense.” See also Jaquith v. Bec

2017In this case, after the trial court inquired about the status of the mental evaluation, defense counsel should have requested the competency hearing and competency determination required by the rule. 73 that the trial of a mentally incompetent defendant is a due process violation, adjuring that “We urge upon the trial courts to observe this constitutional right of defendants, with meticulous care, and submit to the jury, preliminarily, the issue of the defendant’s sanity in all cases where there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense.” See also Jaquith v. Bec

2002When a rational challenge is made by a party to a prospective juror, and other jurors against whom no challenge is made are available, the circuit judge should ordinarily excuse the challenged juror." Scott v. Ball, 595 So.2d 848, 849 (Miss.1992). ¶ 37.

1997Scott v. Ball, 595 So.2d 848, 849-50 (Miss. 1992).

2008The Mississippi Supreme Court noted in Emanuel v. State, 412 So.2d 1187, 1188 (Miss.1982), "when it appears to the trial court that there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the trial court should not proceed until the defendant's mental condition has been investigated and it appears that he is sufficiently rational to make a defense." In addition, "the burden of proof . . . rests upon the movants [the defendant] to prove by substantial evidence that the defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial." Richardson v. State, 767 So.2d 195, 203 (¶ 41) (Mis

2008The Mississippi Supreme Court noted in Emanuel v. State, 412 So.2d 1187, 1188 (Miss.1982), "when it appears to the trial court that there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, the trial court should not proceed until the defendant's mental condition has been investigated and it appears that he is sufficiently rational to make a defense." In addition, "the burden of proof . . . rests upon the movants [the defendant] to prove by substantial evidence that the defendant is mentally incompetent to stand trial." Richardson v. State, 767 So.2d 195, 203 (¶ 41) (Mis

2007Where there is a serious question about the sanity or competency of a defendant to stand trial, "it naturally devolves upon the defendant to go forward with the evidence to show his probable incapacity to make a rational defense." Emanuel v. State, 412 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Miss.1982); see also Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 660 (Miss.1997).

1997Where there is a serious question about the sanity or competency of a defendant to stand trial, “it naturally devolves upon the defendant to go forward with the evidence to show his probable incapacity to make a rational defense.” Emanuel v. State, 412 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Miss. 1982); see also Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613, 660 (Miss. 1997).

2013The United States Supreme Court had defined the competency standard to stand trial as being “whether a defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Id. (citation omitted). 4 Additionally, in Billiot v. State, 655 So.2d 1, 11 (Miss.1995), the supreme court recognized its previous holding that [w]hen the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a ratio

2009The supreme court held in Billiot v. State, 655 So.2d 1, 11 (Miss.1995) that: When the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, we will not overturn that finding unless we can say, from the evidence, that the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

2009(Emphasis added.) (Internal citations omitted.) See also Jaquith v. Beckwith, 248 Miss. 491, 500 , 157 So.2d 403, 407 (1963) (“Assuming a properly authorized psychiatric examination has been made under the statute, the court and the jury may then consider the doctors’ findings in determining, as a question prior to trial on the merits, the issue of present insanity.”) (emphasis added) (citing Robinson v. State, 223 Miss. 70, 81 , 77 So.2d 265 (1955)).

2009(Emphasis added.) (Internal citations omitted.) See also Jaquith v. Beckwith, 248 Miss. 491, 500 , 157 So.2d 403, 407 (1963) (“Assuming a properly authorized psychiatric examination has been made under the statute, the court and the jury may then consider the doctors’ findings in determining, as a question prior to trial on the merits, the issue of present insanity.”) (emphasis added) (citing Robinson v. State, 223 Miss. 70, 81 , 77 So.2d 265 (1955)).

1992In unequivocal terms, the Court urged that the lower tribunals "observe the constitutional rights of defendants, with meticulous care, and submit to the jury, preliminarily, the issue of the defendant's sanity in all cases where there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense." Id. 61 So.2d at 331 (emphasis added).

1992In unequivocal terms, the Court urged that the lower tribunals "observe the constitutional rights of defendants, with meticulous care, and submit to the jury, preliminarily, the issue of the defendant's sanity in all cases where there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense." Id. 61 So.2d at 331 (emphasis added).

1992In Davis v. State, 151 Miss. 883 , 119 So. 805, 806 (1929) the Court held that it was incumbent upon the defendant to present the lower court with an affidavit or witnesses proving present inability to conduct a rational defense; mere motion by defense counsel was insufficient to require the court to halt trial and conduct a preliminary hearing on competency.

1992In Davis v. State, 151 Miss. 883 , 119 So. 805, 806 (1929) the Court held that it was incumbent upon the defendant to present the lower court with an affidavit or witnesses proving present inability to conduct a rational defense; mere motion by defense counsel was insufficient to require the court to halt trial and conduct a preliminary hearing on competency.

2002Following the dictates of Hudson , the Scott court held "[w]hen a rational challenge is made by a party to a prospective juror, and other jurors against whom no challenge is made are available, the circuit judge should excuse the challenged juror." Id. at 850 .

2000Following the dictates of Hudson, the Scott court held "[w]hen a rational challenge is made by a party to a prospective juror, and other jurors against whom no challenge is made are available, the circuit judge should excuse the challenged juror." Id. at 850.

1988Code Ann. (1972) permitting a judge to order a criminal defendant to submit to a mental examination to determine his ability to make a defense is "to avoid placing an accused on trial unless he is capable of conducting a rational defense by intelligently conferring with his counsel." Caylor v. State, 437 So.2d 444, 445 (Miss. 1983); see also Tarrants v. State, 236 So.2d 360 (Miss. 1970); Frierson v. State, 165 So.2d 342 (Miss. 1964).

1983Tarrants v. State, 236 So.2d 360 (Miss. 1970); Frierson v. State, 250 Miss. 339 , 165 So.2d 342 (1964); McGinnis v. State, 241 Miss. 883 , 133 So.2d 399 (1961).

2020Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968, 1007 (Miss. 2007) (“Where there is a serious question about the sanity or competency of a defendant to stand trial, ‘it naturally devolves upon the defendant to go forward with the evidence to show his probable incapacity to make a rational defense.’” (quoting Emanuel v. State, 412 So. 2d 1187, 1189 (Miss. 1982))).

2013After hearing all the evidence, the court shall weigh the evidence and make a determination of whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. ¶ 36. “[T]o warrant a mental evaluation, the trial court must find from the evidence that there is a probability, not a mere possibility, that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense.” Staten v. State, 989 So.2d 938, 946 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Richardson v. State, 767 So.2d 195, 203 (¶ 41) (Miss.2000)).

2012Sanders, 9 So.3d at 1137 (¶ 18). ¶ 24.

2008When competency of a defendant is raised as an issue, a trial court must conduct a hearing "to determine whether there is a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense." Bridges, 807 So.2d at 1230 (¶ 10).

2008If the trial court determines "that `there is not sufficient proof to show a probability that defendant is incapable of conducting a rational defense ... [the] case may then proceed to trial on the merits.'" Bridges, 807 So.2d at 1230 (¶ 10) (quoting Emanuel, 412 So.2d at 1188-89 ). ¶ 12.

2002In Toyota Motor Corp. v. McLaurin, 642 So.2d 351, 357-58 (Miss.1994), the Court acknowledged the need to guard against even the appearance of unfairness and that when a rational challenge is made by a party to a prospective juror, and other jurors against whom no challenge is made are available and can be summoned, the trial judge should ordinarily excuse the challenged juror.