People v. Bolden

California Court of Appeal
160 Cal. Rptr. 268, 99 Cal. App. 3d 375, 1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 2434 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defense attorney does not provide ineffective assistance by acting contrary to a client's express wishes to be found competent if the attorney has a good-faith doubt as to the client's competency. Additionally, a law requiring an attorney to state an opinion on a client's competence does not violate the attorney-client privilege.

Facts:

Samuel Othello Bolden, Jr., was charged with robbery and assault against his father and brother.
Bolden held the delusional belief that the people he was charged with assaulting were not his father and brother, but were alien imposters from outer space inhabiting their bodies.
During proceedings to determine his mental competence, Bolden expressed a clear desire to be found competent and to proceed to trial.
Bolden's attorney believed that an insanity defense was available but that Bolden's current mental state prevented the cooperation necessary to pursue it.
The attorney, concluding that Bolden could not act in his own best interests, decided to present evidence of Bolden's incompetence, contrary to Bolden's stated wishes.

Procedural Posture:

The People charged Samuel Othello Bolden, Jr. in a California trial court with robbery and multiple counts of assault.
The trial court suspended criminal proceedings to determine Bolden's mental competence to stand trial.
The first jury trial on the issue of competence resulted in a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict.
The court appointed new counsel for Bolden for a retrial on the competency issue.
At the retrial, the jury returned a verdict finding Bolden not competent to stand trial.
The trial court issued an order committing Bolden to Patton State Hospital.
Bolden (appellant) appealed the order to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the constitutionality of a statute and the effectiveness of his counsel.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a defense attorney provide ineffective assistance of counsel by presenting evidence of a client's incompetence to stand trial against the client's express wishes, based on the attorney's duty to act in the client's best interests?

Opinions:

Majority - The Court

No. A defense attorney does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by presenting evidence of a client's incompetence against the client's express wishes when the attorney doubts the client's sanity. Diligent advocacy does not require an attorney to blindly follow every desire of their client, especially when the attorney doubts the client's present mental competence. In such situations, counsel may assume the client cannot act in their own best interests and may act contrary to the client's express desires to ensure a fair trial process. Furthermore, Penal Code section 1368, which requires an attorney to give an opinion on their client's competence, does not violate the attorney-client privilege because the opinion itself, while based on observations, does not reveal the content of specific confidential communications.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the difficult ethical position of a defense attorney with a potentially incompetent client. It establishes that the attorney's overarching duty to ensure a fair trial and act in the client's best interests can supersede the duty to act as a mere mouthpiece for the client's expressed desires. The ruling insulates attorneys from ineffective assistance claims when they make a good-faith decision to raise the issue of competency, even over a client's objection. This precedent reinforces the court's role as a protector of defendants' due process rights, ensuring that an individual cannot be tried while mentally incompetent, even if they insist on it.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Bolden (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature