recognizing a retrospective determination of the competency of an accused “can be made within the limits of due process depending upon the quality and quantity of the evidence available”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing a retrospective determination of the competency of an accused “can be made within the limits of due process depending upon the quality and quantity of the evidence available”
- applying the Sisco-Williams line of cases and remanding for an after-the-fact competency hearing
- “The © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 Turner v. State, --- S.W.3d (2013
- doctor’s testimony that defendant was incompetent constitutes “some evidence” warranting a section 4 hearing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I can find no evidence in the record which would support a finding of incompetency in this case, I respectfully dissent to the remand.
As the majority opinion demonstrates, Dr. Lett’s testimony that appellant was incompetent was based entirely upon Dr. Lett’s erroneous conclusions that people don’t shoot fish with a bow and arrow and *838 that the Dallas Police would have searched the trunk of appellant’s auto.
WHITE, J., joins in this opinion.