People v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 19 January 1967
• Docket Number: No. 39065,39065
• Citation: 36 Ill.2d 332,223 N.E.2d 97
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Jerry THOMPSON, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 97

223 N.E.2d 97

36 Ill.2d 332

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Jerry THOMPSON, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 39065.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 19, 1967.

J. Robert Cassidy, Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach and George W. Kenney, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and James Zagel, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.

HOUSE, Justice.

Defendant, Jerry Thompson, was convicted in a 1960 Cook County bench trial of murdering his half-brother and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. He asserts that error occurring both in his pretrial competency hearing and in his subsequent trial have deprived him of due process of law.

At the second competency hearing (an initial hearing terminated in a mistrial when the jury was unable to agree on a verdict) the assistant State's Attorney in his closing argument told the jury, in effect that the burden of showing defendant's incompetence rested with the defense. The court in substance instructed the jury that they must find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was unable to understand the nature of the charge against him and to co-operate with his counsel concerning his defense in order to find defendant incompetent to stand trial. No objection was posed to the State's Attorney's statement during closing argument, but the defense did object to the People's proffered instructions. While the record does not show who tendered the given instructions, a factor sometimes held to preclude objection at the appellate level, (see People v. Squires, 27 Ill.2d 518, 190 N.E.2d 361; People v. Woodruff, 9 Ill.2d 429, 440, 137 N.E.2d 809,) we believe the claimed error must be reached on review.

The burden of establishing defendant's incompetence to stand trial does not rest with the defense. Once any evidence indicating incompetency is brought forth by the defense, the burden devolves upon the State to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant is competent to stand trial. He must understand the nature of the charges against him and be able to co-operate with his counsel. (People v. Bender, 20 Ill.2d 45, at p. 53, 169 N.E.2d 328.) The jury may well have believed that the burden of showing incompetency was upon defendant because the only information which it had concerning the allocation of the burden of proof indicated that such was the law. In view of the fact that the jury may have considered the entire pretrial sanity hearing upon an erroneous theory, we hold defendant was deprived of due process of law. We have previously held that the waiver rule will not operate, at least where the error is of the substantial magnitude manifested here, to deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to due process. (People v. Bedford, 31 Ill.2d 227, 201 N.E.2d 420; People v. Bender, 20 Ill.2d at p. 54, 169 N.E.2d 328; People v. Burson, 11 Ill.2d 360, 370, 143 N.E.2d 239.) The determination that defendant was competent to stand trial must therefore be reversed. People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291, 294, 205 N.E.2d 456, and cases there cited.

It has been suggested that in the event of a reversal we should remand solely for the purpose of determining competency at the time of the...