State v. Holland, 230 N.C.App. 337, 749 S.E.2d 464 (Nov. 5, 2013)

(1) The trial court did not err by failing to inquire, sua sponte, about the defendant’s competency after he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric unit during trial. After the defendant failed to appear in court mid-trial and defense counsel was unable to explain his absence, the defendant was tried in absentia. Later during trial, defense counsel obtained information indicating that the defendant might have been committed, but was unable to confirm that. Evidence produced in connection with the defendant’s motion for appropriate relief (MAR) established that he in fact had been committed at that time. However, during trial, there was no evidence that the defendant had a history of mental illness and the defendant’s conduct in court indicated that he was able to communicate clearly and with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. While the trial court had information indicating that the defendant might have been committed, defense counsel was unable to confirm that information. Furthermore, at the MAR hearing defense counsel maintained he had no reason to believe anything was wrong with the defendant and thought the defendant’s hospitalization was part of a plan to avoid prosecution. (2) The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s MAR which asserted that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial. Adequate evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the defendant was malingering.

Error | UNC School of Government

Error

The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.