finding the defendant competent despite the fact that he suffered from schizophrenia
How later courts described this case
- finding the defendant competent despite the fact that he suffered from schizophrenia
- finding the probative value of excluded reports “diminished” because the defense expert was able to testify about them
- "While appellant claims the evidence [unsponsored mental-health reports] was crucial, we do not agree insofar as appellant could have called these various doctors to testify regarding their diagnoses and opinions"
- one-year delay between reversal of conviction and retrial did not constitute denial of speedy trial, because delay was largely due to defendant's hospitalization while undergoing testing to evaluate competency
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part by TAYLOR v. STATE, 2018 OK CR 6 (2018)
Id., 556 U.S. at 786--87, 129 S. Ct. at 2085.2 This Court's decisions in Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, ¶ 55, 144 P.3d 838, 866; Miller v. State, 2001 OK CR 17, ¶ 10, 29 P.3d 1077, 1080; Valdez v. State, 1995 OK CR 18, ¶ 33, 900 P.2d 363, 374; Walker v. State, 1990 OK CR 44, ¶ 12, 795 P.2d 1064, 1067; Ake v. State, 1989 OK CR 30, ¶ 40, 778 P.2d 460, 469; and McCaulley v. State, 1988 OK CR 25, ¶ 9, 750 P.2d 1124, 112…
The opinion
BRETT, Judge, specially
concurring.
While I concur in this decision, I do not subscribe to the author’s comments in footnote I. Each case must be considered on its own merits as to the extent of technical assistance that should be allowed.