 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Powell12/13/2005
proceedings. Id. at 402. The Dusky standard has been adopted in Tennessee. See State v. Black, 815 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tenn. 1991); State v. Benton, 759 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988); Mackey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975). In Mackey, this court determined that the defendant must be able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, must be able to consult with counsel, and must be able to assist in the preparation of his defense. 537 S.W.2d at 707.
The burden is on the defendant to establish his incompetency to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). The determination of competency is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Caughron, 855 S.W.2d 526, 538 (Tenn. 1993); State v. Howard, 926 S.W.2d 579 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Where the trial judge failed to conduct an evidentiary inquiry, the question on appeal is whether he should have experienced doubt with respect to the defendant's competency to stand trial. Berndt v. State, 733 S.W.2d 119,122 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987).
Here, the trial court granted the defendant's first request for a mental evaluation. Although the report of the forensic evaluation was not made a part of the record for this appeal, the trial court referred to the conclusions reached in the report at the hearing on the motion for a second evaluation. The doctor who performed the evaluation apparently determined that the defendant was competent to stand trial. The trial judge, satisfied with the conclusions in the initial report, ruled that the defendant was competent and had failed to establish any basis for a second evaluation. At trial, the defendant expressed an understanding of the charges against him and an awareness that he was not required to testify at trial. When asked by the trial court if he wanted to testify on his own behalf, the defendant indicated his desire to do so because it was his opinion that his testimony would not make things any worse. While his answers were often lacking in logic, nothing indicated that the defendant did not have a reasonable and factual understanding of the proceedings. Because it appears that the defendant understood the "nature and object of the proceedings" and could assist in the preparation of a defense, it is our view that the trial court did not err by refusing to grant a second mental evaluation.
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
|