 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Jones11/15/2005
s the burden of proof on that issue. State v. Baker, 312 N.C. 34, 43, 320 S.E.2d 670, 677 (1984).
When the capacity of a defendant to proceed is questioned, the trial court is required to conduct a hearing. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1002(b). A trial court's determination on the issue of competency is conclusive on appeal if supported by the evidence. State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567, 575, 234 S.E.2d 587, 592 (1977). "Although the better practice is for the trial court to make findings and conclusions when ruling on a motion under G.S. 15A-1002(b), it is not error for the trial court to fail to do so where the evidence would have compelled the ruling made." State v. Gates, 65 N.C. App. 277, 283, 309 S.E.2d 498, 502 (1983).
Pursuant to defendant's motion in the present case, on 18 December 2003, the trial court conducted a hearing prior to the probation violation hearing to determine defendant's capacity to proceed. At the hearing, defendant presented the testimony of psychologist Bailey while the State presented the testimony of defendant's probation officer, Lori Owenby. Our Supreme Court has held that lay witnesses may testify on the issue of competency and it is error for a trial court to disregard such testimony. State v. Silvers, 323 N.C. 646, 654, 374 S.E.2d 858, 864 (1989).
Bailey testified that she evaluated defendant in November 2003; that defendant "didn't seem to understand what revoking probation meant"; and that defendant "appeared to be perhaps in the mild [mentally retarded] to borderline range of intelligence." She ultimately testified as follows:
Q: And you weren't able to formulate an opinion in this case, were you, other than she needs further evaluation?
A: Other than she needed further evaluation, yes.
Q: You were able to surmise that she might potentially be mildly mentally retarded or borderline?
A: Yes, based on her presentation thatday; but, again, not having any other information, I would think she would need a full evaluation to determine that.
Defendant presented no evidence other than the testimony of Bailey.
Defendant's probation officer, Lori Owenby, testified that she was first assigned to defendant in May 2003. Their first meeting lasted a half-hour, and Owenby felt that defendant understood what was going on and what was expected of her. Between that first meeting and the date of the competency hearing, Owenby met with defendant seven or eight times. Owenby testified that at each appointment, defendant responded appropriately to Owenby's questions, and defendant "would tell me that she would make an attempt to do whatever [defendant] needed to do to be in compliance with her probation." Owenby also testified that defendant appeared "to understand what was going on" at her probation violation hearing in district court.
Owenby's testimony thus provides competent evidence to support the trial court's determination. Given Bailey's unwillingness to express an opinion regarding defendant's competency, we hold that the trial court did not err in determining that defendant was mentally competent to proceed, and any error in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law was harmless.
Affirmed.
Judges BRYANT and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|