HUBERT ALLEN WOOD v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Greene, Filed Dec. 19, 2013,
Competency- Defendant may withdraw his request for a competency evaluation, and so long as the trial court has no cause to order an evaluation on its own, no finding of competency need be made
Notes from the case on competency:
– a person accused of committing a crime is presumed competent to stand trial
– CP 3-104 “If, before or during a trial, the defendant in a criminal case or a violation of probation proceeding appears to the court to be incompetent to stand trial or the defendant alleges incompetence to stand trial, the court shall determine, on evidence presented on the record, whether the defendant is incompetent to stand trial.”
– a trial court’s duty to determine the competency of the accused is triggered in one of three ways: (1) upon motion of the accused; (2) upon motion of the
defense counsel; or (3) upon a sua sponte determination by the court that the defendant may not be competent to stand trial.
– A defendant “may legally withdraw a request for a competency evaluation.”
– Where the defendant withdraws their request for a competency evaluation, the issue of competency is moot so long as the trial judge does not “have a bona fide doubt that [the defendant is] competent based on evidence presented on the record”
– Where the issue has been rendered moot based on withdraw of the request, and there is no cause for the court to sua sponte order an evaluation anyway, no determination of competency is necessary under 3-104
Other notes from the case:
Provocation- (1) There must have been adequate provocation; (2) The killing must have been in the heat of passion; (3) It must have been a sudden heat of passion–that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool; (4) There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act.
Provocation- Words alone can not amount to provocation
Provocation- Words can amount to provocation where they are accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability on the part of the victim to cause the defendant bodily harm
Note from Annapolis to the rules committee:
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no constitutional requirement that a defendant’s competency be explicitly determined on the record, we submit that it may be practicable for the trial judge to have a brief colloquy with the defendant to eliminate any ambiguities in the competency determination. We request the Rules Committee to consider this matter and determine whether providing a brief list of questions for a trial judge to pose to a defendant whose competency has been questioned would provide useful and would close the door on this issue.