State v. Veale

Supreme Court of New Hampshire
972 A.2d 1009, 158 N.H. 632 (2009)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the New Hampshire Constitution, the stigma associated with a judicial finding of incompetence is a protected liberty interest that triggers due process protections. However, these protections are satisfied by procedures including independent expert examinations and judicial review, and do not require the appointment of separate counsel to advocate for the defendant's competency when their own lawyer raises the issue.

Facts:

Scott W. Veale, a real estate broker, was involved in long-standing land disputes.
A property owner alleged that Veale cut and removed oak timber from the owner's property.
Veale believed he owned the timber and was the victim of an ongoing conspiracy by state and local authorities to deprive him of his property rights.
His relationship with his court-appointed public defenders deteriorated as he began to believe they were part of the conspiracy against him.
Veale's belief in this conspiracy and his resulting accusations against his own lawyers impaired communication to the point that they concluded he was unable to assist in his own defense.

Procedural Posture:

Scott W. Veale was indicted in state trial court on one count of timber trespass and one count of theft.
The trial court appointed a public defender to represent Veale.
Defense counsel filed a motion to determine Veale's competency to stand trial.
Two doctors examined Veale; one found him competent, the other found him incompetent.
After a competency hearing where both doctors testified, the trial court found Veale incompetent to stand trial and unable to be restored to competency.
The trial court later found Veale was not dangerous and dismissed the criminal charges against him.
Veale filed a pro se appeal, which was stayed and remanded for the trial court to rule on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
On remand, the trial court denied the ineffective assistance claim and a motion to vacate the competency finding, ruling that the procedures did not violate due process.
Veale appealed the denial of his motion to vacate to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Do the procedures for a competency hearing, where defense counsel raises the issue over the defendant's objection, violate the defendant's procedural due process rights under the New Hampshire Constitution by failing to provide for a fully adversarial proceeding or separate counsel to argue for competency?

Opinions:

Majority - Hicks, J.

No. The procedures for a competency hearing do not violate the defendant's state constitutional right to procedural due process. While reputational harm from a competency finding is a protected liberty interest under the New Hampshire Constitution—a departure from the federal "stigma-plus" test—the existing procedures are sufficient. The court balanced three factors: (1) the private interests, including the reputational stigma and the right not to be tried while incompetent; (2) the low risk of erroneous deprivation given the procedures used, which include examination by medical experts and review by an impartial judge, and the minimal value of adding another lawyer; and (3) the government's interest in avoiding the fiscal and administrative burdens of a fully adversarial hearing with separate counsel. The court found that these procedures, including expert evaluations and judicial review, reliably protect the defendant's interests without needing to appoint a second attorney to argue against the first.

Analysis:

This case is significant for its interpretation of the New Hampshire Constitution's Due Process Clause. The court explicitly rejected the federal "stigma-plus" test from Paul v. Davis, establishing that in New Hampshire, reputational harm alone can constitute a deprivation of a liberty interest sufficient to trigger due process protections. However, the court then applied a flexible balancing test to find that the existing, medically-focused competency hearing procedures were adequate. This decision creates a broader definition of protected interests than federal law while maintaining a pragmatic and flexible standard for what process is actually due, avoiding a rigid requirement for a fully adversarial hearing in this context.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Veale (2009)

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