State v. Wallace
399 S.W.3d 921, 2013 WL 2402842, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 676 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's factual finding that a defendant is competent to stand trial will not be overturned on appeal so long as it is supported by substantial evidence, even when there is conflicting expert testimony regarding the defendant's present ability to understand the proceedings and assist in their own defense.
Facts:
- Anthony Wallace approached a parked car where a woman (Victim) was sleeping.
- Wallace broke the driver's side window with a large object, entered the car, and drove away with the Victim inside.
- When Victim awoke, Wallace punched her in the face several times, breaking her nose.
- Wallace then exposed himself and attempted to force Victim's head toward his penis.
- Victim jumped out of the moving car but Wallace caught her and forced her back inside.
- To escape a second time, Victim grabbed the steering wheel and intentionally crashed the car into a parked vehicle.
- Victim again tried to run away, but Wallace caught her in a nearby gangway and began pulling off her clothes.
- A neighbor heard Victim screaming, witnessed the assault, and called 911.
Procedural Posture:
- Prior to trial, counsel for Anthony Wallace filed a motion in the trial court to declare him incompetent to stand trial, supported by a report from Dr. Rachael Springman.
- The trial court ordered a second evaluation by Dr. Tracey Fintel, a forensic examiner for the state.
- A competency hearing was held in the trial court, where both doctors testified, offering conflicting opinions on Wallace's competency.
- The trial court found Wallace competent to stand trial.
- Wallace waived his right to a jury trial, proceeded with a bench trial, and was found guilty by the trial court on five felony counts.
- The trial court sentenced Wallace to consecutive and concurrent prison terms.
- Wallace appealed his convictions to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, arguing the trial court erred in its competency finding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a trial court's determination that a defendant is competent to stand trial supported by substantial evidence when the court resolves conflicting expert opinions in favor of competency?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaertner, C.J.
Yes. A trial court’s finding that a defendant is competent to stand trial is a factual finding that will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Here, while two qualified experts disagreed on Appellant's present ability to stand trial, the trial court was entitled to weigh their conflicting testimony and resolve the conflict. Both experts agreed Appellant had mild mental retardation and antisocial personality disorder, but one concluded he was competent while the other did not. The court credited the testimony of Dr. Fintel, who, after a forensic interview, concluded Appellant understood the charges, the roles of court personnel, and was able to assist his attorney. The presence of a mental defect does not automatically render a person incompetent, and it is the trial court's province to assess the credibility of expert witnesses. Unlike cases where a court disregards all expert testimony, here the court properly weighed the conflicting evidence, and Dr. Fintel's opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the competency finding.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts afford to trial courts' factual findings, particularly regarding witness credibility and competency determinations. It establishes that as long as there is some credible expert testimony in the record supporting a competency finding, the finding can withstand an appeal even in the face of contrary expert reports and objective test results. This places a significant burden on the defendant to prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence at the trial level, as a 'battle of the experts' is likely to be resolved in favor of the trial court's determination on appeal. The ruling underscores that a diagnosis of a mental defect is not dispositive; the key inquiry remains the defendant's functional ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel.
