Parker v. State
| Decision Date | 09 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 6-81-121-CR,6-81-121-CR |
| Citation | 667 S.W.2d 185 |
| Parties | William Robert PARKER, aka Billy Bob Parker, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Dick DeGuerin, Houston, for appellant.
John S. Walker, Center, for appellee.
William Robert Parker was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals, contending the jury finding that he was competent to stand trial was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial, the prosecutor made inflammatory remarks, the issue of competency was not properly submitted to the jury, and he was erroneously denied a requested jury charge. We overrule these contentions and affirm the judgment.
Parker was charged with the murder of Shane Caskey. During the trial defense counsel suggested to the trial judge that Parker was suffering from hallucinations and delusions and was not competent to stand trial. The judge declined to abate the trial but held a competency hearing, before a separate jury, after a verdict of guilty was returned but before sentencing. After presentation of testimony from both Parker and the State the jury found that Parker was presently competent and was also competent at the time of the trial on the merits.
We first must decide if the finding of competency was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. A competency hearing is civil in nature, so we apply the civil test and weigh all the evidence to determine if the jury finding was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Ex Parte Watson, 606 S.W.2d 902 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); White v. State, 591 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). When competency is an issue, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, (White v. State, supra; Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 46.02, § 1(b) (Vernon 1979)), that he does not have sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and that he has no rational or 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); Ex Parte Long, 564 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
A great amount of evidence was adduced on the question of competency. Both parties produced expert medical witnesses, as well as laymen who knew Parker and who had observed his actions sufficiently to form opinions concerning his competency. The evidence was highly conflicting. Parker's witnesses indicated he had a history of conduct consistent with paranoid schizophrenia, and that he suffered from delusions and a persecution complex. Although his medical witnesses never actually diagnosed Parker as having schizophrenia at the times in question, they testified that on earlier psychological tests he scored similarly to people tending to have that malady. The State's evidence tended to show that Parker was not psychotic but was malingering, and that he was sufficiently competent to understand the proceedings against him and consult with his lawyer in presenting his defense. A State medical witness testified that a person can suffer from schizophrenia and still be legally competent to stand trial. There was also evidence that Parker had a history of using hallucinogenic drugs which could account for his delusions.
It is the jurors' province to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Ex Parte Harris, 618 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Ex Parte Watson, supra. They may accept or reject any evidence and may believe lay testimony over that of medical experts. White v. Estelle, 669 F.2d 973 (5th Cir.1982). Considering the abundance of conflicting testimony here we cannot say the finding of competency is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Parker also contends the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when faced with evidence of incompetency. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 46.02, § 4(c) (Vernon 1979) provides that a mistrial shall be granted if the defendant is found incompetent at a hearing. Parker was found to have been competent at the time of the trial. There was no error.
During the competency hearing the prosecutor asked a witness: "Doctor, one who has been, assume this to be true, just convicted of murder, with a substantial punishment would --", at which time defense counsel objected. Parker argues such a question was inflammatory and prejudiced the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...Proc. Ann. art. 46B.651 (West Supp.2005)). The jury proceedings under article 46.02 were civil in nature. Parker v. State, 667 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1983, pet. ref'd). In a competency hearing before a jury, a defendant has to overcome the presumption of competency and has the ......
-
Barber v. State
...1073, 106 S.Ct. 834, 88 L.Ed.2d 805 (1986); McBride v. State, 655 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983); Parker v. State, 667 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1983), review ref'd, cert. den. 469 U.S. 1085, 105 S.Ct. 590, 83 L.Ed.2d 699 (1984), review ref'd. Evidence of the crime may......
-
Manning v. State
...But competency to stand trial is not an element of a crime, and a hearing on this issue is civil in nature. Parker v. State, 667 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1983, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1085, 105 S.Ct. 590, 83 L.Ed.2d 699, Lingerfelt v. State, 629 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App.--Dall......
-
Ex parte Perez
...that the parties chose, and then gone forward with any competency proceedings after a guilty verdict. See Parker v. State , 667 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1983, pet. ref'd) (noting that when the defense raised the issue of competency during trial, the court "declined to abate the ......
-
Defenses and special evidentiary charges
...sentencing empanel another jury to determine whether the accused was competent to stand trial and presently competent.) Parker v. State , 667 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.App.Texarkana 1983, pet. ref’d). §3:1130 Presumption of Competency A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be foun......
-
Table of cases
...129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) 3:195 Parker v. State 594 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) 3:1180 Parker v. State 667 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1983, pet. ref’d) 3:1120 Parker v. State 985 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) 8:1110 Parker v. Texas 453 U.S. 902 (1981) ......