Tag Archives: CC 3451


Competency of Defendant Must Focus on the Defendant’s Present Abilities, As Opposed to the Possibility That the Relevant Abilities May Be Restored in the Future
September 19th, 2022

Under both the federal due process clause as interpreted by Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 40, and Penal Code section 1367, a finding of incompetency does “not require a specific medical diagnosis drawn from the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, [or] that the defendant’s mental disorder fit […]


Tags: ,


CALCRIM Revisions Effective October 1, 2021
October 12th, 2021

Effective 10/01/2021 CALCRIM revised instructions listed below. See https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9785541&GUID=96E612F7-0BC9-43FE-814D-86F615957765     Number   Title   336   In-Custody Informant   417   Liability for Coconspirators’ Acts   582 Involuntary Manslaughter: Failure to Perform Legal Duty–Murder Not Charged   625   Voluntary Intoxication: Effects on Homicide Crimes   775   Death Penalty: Mental Retardation   840 […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Competence of Defendant: Improper Reference to “Mental Retardation”
September 15th, 2021

CC 3451 instructs that “mental retardation” is an example of a developmental disability. However, the legislature has removed from derogatory references to “mental retardation”  and other such terms from the applicable statute. (PC 1367(a).) Accordingly, the term “mental retardation” as used in the final paragraph of the instruction should be replaced with the term “intellectual […]


Tags: ,


Present Mental Competence: Defendant Must Be Able to Both Consult With Counsel and Assist in Preparation of His or Her Defense
April 27th, 2021

The materials relating to the March 2021 CALCRIM revisions include a comment and request from attorney John T. Philipsborn regarding the failure of California judges “to provide an instruction on the definition of competence that squares with that set forth by the United States Supreme Court in two separate opinions” (See full text of the […]


Tags: ,


Judge’s Duty to Hold Competency Hearing
June 30th, 2020

Habeas relief was granted in In re Galaviz (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 491, vacating defendant’s NGI commitment because the trial court failed to hold a competency hearing at the time of his trial.  Defendant had initially been found incompetent but was restored to competency after being housed in the state hospital before trial, based on a […]


Tags: ,


Competency and Faretta Self Representation
June 20th, 2020

In In re Sims (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 195 the defendant, an attorney with a pre-existing history of mental illness, was convicted of murdering her husband.  Earlier in the proceedings, a doubt was declared about her competency, but the trial court found her competent and later allowed her to proceed in pro per.  During the trial, […]


Tags: ,


Competency: (1) No Specific Medical Diagnosis Required (2) Ability to Both Understand Nature of Proceedings and Assist Counsel Is Required
June 10th, 2020

Under both the federal due process clause as interpreted by Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 40, and Penal Code section 1367, a finding of incompetency does “not require a specific medical diagnosis drawn from the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, [or] that the defendant’s mental disorder fit […]


Tags: ,