Bassett v. McCarthy

• Decision Date: 06 January 1977
• Docket Number: No. 75-1978,75-1978
• Citation: 549 F.2d 616
• Parties: Fred Kipp BASSETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. J. McCARTHY, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 616

549 F.2d 616

Fred Kipp BASSETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. J. McCARTHY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 75-1978.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1977.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 15, 1977.

Theodore Eugene Orliss (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

John R. Gorey, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.

Before HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, ^* District Judge.

SCHWARZER, District Judge:

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court to review the failure of the state trial court to hold a hearing sua sponte on petitioner's mental competency to stand trial. Petitioner previously raised the issue on a motion for a new trial and petitions to the state appellate courts but was unsuccessful. The District Court denied the petition and we affirm.

THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner, in January 1964, was charged with two counts of first degree murder for the killing of his parents. He pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Acting pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1368, the state trial court appointed two psychiatrists to examine him. ¹ On the basis of their report, the court on February 28, 1964, found petitioner presently insane, suspended the proceedings and committed him to the Atascadero State Hospital. (Clerk's Tr. 1-4.) Some two years later, on May 4, 1966, Atascadero issued a certificate under Cal. Penal Code § 1372, ² stating in relevant part:

"It is the consensus of the medical staff and the superintendent of the hospital that he (defendant) is now able to understand the nature of the charges against The certificate was accompanied by a six page analytical report containing the data on which the certificate was based. (Clerk's Tr. 6-11.)

him and can cooperate rationally with his attorney in his defense." (Clerk's Tr. 5.)

Petitioner was then returned to the Los Angeles County Jail. Trial was set for September 23, 1966 but as a result of several requests for continuances by petitioner was continued to December 1, 1966. (Clerk's Tr. 12-20.) Trial commenced that day before a jury. Under California's trifurcated procedure in capital cases, separate trials were held on the issues of guilt, sanity, and penalty. (Cal. Penal Code §§ 109, 1026.) The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts of first degree murder, found the petitioner to be sane and fixed the penalty at death. (Clerk's Tr. 100-102, 133-135, 146-148.)

Thereafter petitioner moved for a new trial, claiming among other things "errors in law occurring in the trial." (Clerk's Tr. 150.) In his affidavit in support of the motion, he contended for the first time that the court had committed error in having failed to order a hearing on its own motion on petitioner's present sanity. (Clerk's Tr. 152, 177-180.) Neither counsel, in the course of the brief oral argument on the motion, addressed this issue. (Trial Tr. 1809-1821.) The court denied the motion, stating in relevant part:

"One point that was raised in the written memorandum was not discussed in the oral argument, and that is whether the Court should have had a hearing on the sanity of the defendant at the present moment and during the course of the trial. By the present moment I mean all during the course of the trial. This was a point that was not suggested to the Court by defense counsel, and the State Hospital returned the defendant to the Court as being able to comprehend the nature of the trial and to stand trial.

I don't think the Court committed an error in not, on its own motion, raising the question of sanity of the defendant and his ability to stand trial." (Trial Tr. 1822.)

An appeal, automatic under Cal. Penal Code § 1239(b), was then taken to the California Supreme Court. The issue of petitioner's competence to stand trial, or of his sanity at the time of trial, was not raised (R. T. 15), and the Supreme Court did not mention it, except in a passing footnote reference, in its opinion. People v. Bassett, 69 Cal.2d 122, 70 Cal.Rptr. 193, n. 1, 443 P.2d 777 (1968). That opinion concerned itself entirely with the question of the " 'substantiality' of the prosecution's evidence of mental capacity" for the purpose of determining whether the first degree murder verdicts could stand. After a detailed review of the evidence, particularly the evidence bearing on petitioner's mental state, the court held that the judgment should be modified to second degree murder.

Subsequently petitioner sought writs of habeas corpus in the State Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court based on the trial court's failure to hold a hearing on petitioner's competence to stand trial. All were denied on the merits without comment. The petition to the District Court followed and was also dismissed on the merits. This appeal is from the order of dismissal. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

On this appeal we are again confronted with the troublesome question whether a state trial court denied petitioner his constitutional right to a fair trial by failing to hold a hearing sua sponte to determine petitioner's competence to stand trial. The constitutional standard of competence is whether a defendant "has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960).

In the present posture of the case, we are not concerned with whether the trial court could have found petitioner to be either competent or incompetent, nor are we concerned with whether this Court, viewing the matter de novo, would or should find the petitioner incompetent. The issue here is whether petitioner was denied a fair trial because he did not have a hearing on his competence to stand trial.

This Court only recently struggled with the problem of applying the principles of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966), and Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), and concluded in De Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1976), that due process requires the trial judge to hold a competency hearing on his own motion only where the record as a whole discloses substantial evidence sufficient to raise a genuine doubt in the mind of a reasonable trial judge concerning the defendant's competence. Id. at 982-983. The Court in Drope reminds us that this doubt relates not to mental illness in general but to the practical aspects of the defense of the action:

". . . the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense . . ." (420 U.S. at 171, 95 S.Ct. at 903.)

This standard is not easily applied. A post-conviction claim of incompetence is likely to arise primarily in cases in which it is acknowledged that defendant suffers some mental impairment. The reviewing court must therefore sift the record of abnormal behavior for evidence which might, at a hearing on the issue of competence, be found to be relevant and material to competency. The difficulty of such evaluation is increased because it must be based on analysis of a trial record in which the parties presumably did not address the issue of the defendant's competency, and from which the evidence of petitioner's demeanor and attitude and of his understanding and cooperation may therefore be largely missing.

In this case the testimony disclosed that petitioner, who was eighteen at the time of the crime, had been mentally ill from early childhood (Tr. 287, 375). The expert witnesses generally agreed that he suffered from schizophrenia and, according to most, paranoid schizophrenia (Tr. 276, 136, 432, 976, 1012, 1021, 1430). His condition was accompanied by delusions and hallucinations which played a part in the crime of which he was convicted (Tr. 317-318, 326, 371).

But petitioner's mental infirmity and the bizarre crime he committed do not necessarily imply that he did not understand the proceeding or could not cooperate with his counsel. ³ See De Kaplany v. Enomoto, above, 540 F.2d at 982.

". . . (E)vidence of a defendant's irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required . . . even one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient. There are . . . no fixed or immutable signs which invariably indicate the need for further inquiry to determine fitness to proceed; the question is often a difficult one in which a wide range of manifestations and subtle nuances are implicated." Drope v. Missouri, above, 420 U.S. at 180, 95 S.Ct. at 908.

Unlike defendant in Pate, petitioner here did not have a history of irrational and violent behavior preceding the crime (383 U.S. at 379-382, 86 S.Ct. 836). See also, Moore v. United States, 464 F.2d 663, 665 (9th Cir. 1972). Nor was petitioner, as defendant in Drope, a person with a low I.Q. given to extreme anti-social conduct (420 U.S. at 164-166, 179, 181, 95 S.Ct. 896). Petitioner was obviously intelligent and articulate, a college student doing average or better work, who, as his testimony at the trial later confirmed, was able to communicate with others (Tr. 355, 525, 529-532, 536-539, 556-559). Relatives, neighbors and acquaintances testified without contradiction that his past behavior had never led them to doubt his sanity (Tr. 590, 593-595, 598, 602-603, 605-607, 1003-1004, 1010, 1501-1502, 1504-1505, 1510-1511, 1513-1515, 1520-1521, 1532-1533, 1540-1542).

Six months before the trial began, the professional staff at Atascadero had certified that petitioner was "now able to understand the nature of the charges against him and can cooperate rationally with his attorney in his...