People v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 03 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 98CA1216.,98CA1216. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis R. PALMER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Melissa D. Allen, Special Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave, III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge DAVIDSON.
Defendant, Dennis R. Palmer, appeals from the judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. We remand for further proceedings relevant to a determination of defendant's competency.
Police officers learned from a confidential informant that a substantial quantity of marijuana could be found in a box in the back of a white pickup truck. The informant told the officers the address where the truck would be located and described other vehicles which would be present. However, the informant did not name any of the people involved.
The officers went to the location and observed vehicles matching the descriptions provided by the informant. When defendant drove the white pickup truck from the scene, the police officers stopped him.
One of the officers asked defendant for permission to search the truck for marijuana. Defendant told the officer there was no marijuana in the truck and agreed to the search. The officer opened an unlocked wooden box in the open bed of the truck and discovered 89 pounds of marijuana.
Defendant was found to be indigent and was represented by court-appointed counsel. Prior to trial, defense counsel informed the court that, since the time charges were first filed, defendant had been seriously injured when a car he was working on came off of a lift and crushed his head. Defendant suffered multiple skull fractures and, as a result of these injuries, had no recollection of the events for which he was charged. Defense counsel asserted that defendant's memory loss rendered him incompetent because he was unable to assist in his own defense.
The trial court referred defendant for a competency evaluation through the Colorado Mental Health Institute. The evaluation was conducted by a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. The psychiatrist interviewed defendant and reviewed the medical records of his injuries. The psychiatrist accepted defendant's claim that he recalled nothing of the events surrounding his arrest. However, the psychiatrist concluded that, because defendant was able to understand the workings of the court, he would be able to assist his lawyer. The psychiatrist explained that: "It is my understanding that amnesia per se does not qualify as a reason in itself to call a person incompetent to proceed."
Defense counsel disagreed with the psychiatrist's conclusion that defendant was competent and asked the trial court to appoint an independent examiner to conduct a second examination at state expense before determining defendant's competency. Counsel explained that, because of his amnesia, defendant was unable to provide counsel with the information necessary to formulate a defense such as the names of possible witnesses or alternative suspects.
The trial court refused to appoint an independent examiner and made a finding that defendant was competent to proceed.
Evidence at trial established that the truck defendant had been driving belonged to his brother. Defendant had been borrowing the truck for about six months and using it in his landscaping business. During that time, defendant's brother had seen persons other than defendant driving the truck.
The confidential informant did not testify at trial, and the prosecution did not call any witness to testify that defendant was involved in marijuana distribution or that he was aware the marijuana was in the truck. The police officers testified that they recovered several fingerprints from the marijuana packaging which were not of good enough quality to make a comparison.
Defendant's memory did not improve during trial. When the court asked defendant whether he was going to testify, defendant replied that he was not, because "I can't remember anything to testify."
At sentencing, defendant was unable to allocute, again explaining:
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court improperly determined that he was competent to proceed and, similarly, erred by refusing his request for an independent psychiatric examiner. We agree with both contentions.
A person is incompetent to proceed when he "is suffering from a mental disease or defect which renders him incapable of understanding the nature and course of the proceedings against him or of participating or assisting in his defense or cooperating with his defense counsel." Section 16-8-102(3), C.R.S.1999.
An accused's competency must be assessed with specific reference to the nature of the proceeding with which he or she is confronted and the appropriate level of understanding necessary for meaningful cooperation with his attorney. Jones v. District Court, 617 P.2d 803 (Colo.1980).
Section 16-8-111(1), C.R.S.1999, provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Whenever the question of a defendant's incompetency to proceed is raised, the court shall make a preliminary finding either that the defendant is competent to proceed or that he is not. If the court feels that the information available to it is inadequate for making such finding, it may order a competency examination or such other investigation as it deems advisable.
Section 16-8-106(1), C.R.S.1999, prescribes the procedures for a court-ordered psychiatric examination through the Colorado Mental Health Institute. As relevant here, the statute provides that, for good cause shown, the court may order further examinations as are advisable under the circumstances. In addition, § 16-8-108(1), C.R.S.1999, provides that if the defendant wishes to be examined by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other expert of his own choice, the court shall order that such examiner be given reasonable opportunity to conduct the examination.
The issue of an amnesiac's competency is one of first impression in Colorado.
Cases from various jurisdictions across the country consistently hold that a criminal defendant's loss of memory as to the alleged incident is not per se lack of competence to stand trial. See generally J. Purver, Annotation, Amnesia as Affecting Capacity to Commit Crime or Stand Trial, 46 A.L.R.3d 544 (1972). A majority of courts to consider the issue have adopted the fact-specific multi-factor approach first set forth in Wilson v. United States, 391 F.2d 460 (D.C.Cir.1968).
Under the Wilson test, a trial court must conduct a pretrial competency hearing and must also make a post-trial determination as to whether the defendant was able to perform functions essential to the fairness and accuracy of the particular proceedings in which he or she was involved. The trial court should consider:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palmer
...RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. The prosecution in this case seeks review of the court of appeals' decision in People v. Palmer, 9 P.3d 1156 (Colo.App.2000). After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On appeal, the court reman......