Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
To determine whether the trial court erred in failing to inquire further on the defendant's competency to stand trial, the United States Supreme Court employs the standard of whether the trial court gave "proper weight" to the evidence produced. This independent review of the evidence is appropriate in circumstances where all pertinent evidence is undisputed, leaving only the question of the inferences that are to be drawn from this evidence.
Defendant, who was 15 years old, was charged by petition with first-degree attempted burglary. At a competency hearing, the district court concluded that defendant was competent to proceed to trial. The district court adjudicated defendant a delinquent. Defendant challenged the determination that he was competent to proceed in the case, contending that his mental handicap prevented necessary assistance to his attorney and involved some superficiality in his understanding of the proceedings.
Under the circumstances, did the district court err in concluding that the defendant was competent to proceed to trial?
The court affirmed the competency determination that permitted defendant to have gone to trial for a burglary offense. According to the court, the evidence about defendant's limited intellectual abilities identified narrow areas of difficulty for defendant but did not compel reversal of the juvenile court's finding that defendant had the ability to understand and participate in the proceedings and to consult with counsel. At the competency hearing, evidence was introduced that despite defendant's low verbal IQ score, he responded to questions and understood what was asked of him. The court concluded that the district court drew proper inferences from the evidence bearing on defendant's competence to have proceeded pursuant to Minn. R. Juv. P. 20.01, subd. 1(B), which set forth the standards for juvenile competence.