{ "id": 1895744, "name": "Lee Duane JACOBS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Jacobs v. State", "decision_date": "1988-02-22", "docket_number": "CR 87-88", "first_page": "551", "last_page": "555", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "294 Ark. 551" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "744 S.W.2d 728" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "292 Ark. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1871178 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/292/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 Ark. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719661 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/286/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-89-111", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(d)" }, { "page": "(d)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-309", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "789 F.2d 644", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1573907 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/789/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "702 F.2d 723", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1848015 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "725", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/702/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "420 U.S. 162", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11643095 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/420/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-302", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "383 U.S. 375", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6171240 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/383/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-305", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 442, "char_count": 7024, "ocr_confidence": 0.899, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.7749278770840004e-07, "percentile": 0.8962929885101409 }, "sha256": "242b59529dff885445fec5ffabb68576a2c1a86ca56a3982cfb666dcd92e3ab4", "simhash": "1:d2aab3ea18ba0ffc", "word_count": 1168 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:12:05.889486+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Lee Duane JACOBS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nThe appellant was charged and convicted of the first degree murders of Noah Moss and Anna Marie Padilla. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. We reverse and remand for new trials on both charges.\nBoth victims were killed on June 5, 1986, in Crawford County. Appellant was arrested on June 7 and, on July 2, his trial date was set for August 21, 1986. On July 18 the appellant\u2019s attorney filed a motion alleging that appellant was mentally incompetent and was unable to assist in his defense. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-305 (1987) [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-605 (Repl. 1977)]. On July 22, the trial court ordered a local physician to examine the appellant in order to decide whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant was incapable of assisting in his defense. On July 29, after a 20 minute examination, the local physician reported \u201cI find no reason to believe that he is incompetent.\u201d On August 6, the appellant filed another motion for a psychiatric examination. The State objected, but the court ordered that he be examined by a local psychiatrist. On August 12, the psychiatrist conducted a two hour interview with the appellant, and on August 15 reported to the court: \u201cBecause of the impairment in his ability to cooperate with his attorney, I feel his competency to stand trial is highly questionable.\u201d\nOn August 18, three days before the trial was scheduled to start, the court held an omnibus hearing. Appellant\u2019s attorney orally moved for a full examination of the appellant. The trial court held that there was not enough evidence to send him to the State Hospital. The trial commenced three days later.\nThe appellant contends that the trial court denied him due process in refusing to order a full examination and report. The argument has merit.\nThe conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966). See also Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-302 (1987) [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-603 (Repl. 1977)]. In order to be competent to stand trial a defendant must have the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975); Speedy v. Wyrick, 702 F.2d 723 (8th Cir. 1983). A trial court should sua sponte order a competency hearing when there is a reasonable doubt about the defendant\u2019s competency to stand trial. Campbell v. Lockhart, 789 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1986).\nAs the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Speedy, 702 F.2d at 725 (citations omitted) (emphasis added):\nThis court has recently stated the test for determining whether a trial court should sua sponte order a competency hearing:\nUnder the rule of Pate v. Robinson ... a due process evidentiary hearing is constitutionally compelled at any time that there is \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d that the defendant may be mentally incompetent to stand trial. \u201cSubstantial evidence\u201d is a term of art. \u201cEvidence\u201d encompasses all information properly before the court, whether it is in the form of testimony or exhibits formally admitted or it is in the form of medical reports or other kinds of reports that have been filed with the court. Evidence is \u201csubstantial\u201d if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant\u2019s competency to stand trial. Once there is such evidence from any source, there is a doubt that cannot be dispelled by resort to conflicting evidence. The function of the trial court in applying Pate\u2019s substantial evidence test is not to determine the ultimate issue: Is the defendant competent to stand trial? Its sole function is to decide whether there is any evidence which, assuming its truth, raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant\u2019s competency. At any time that such evidence appears, the trial court sua sponte must order an evidentiary hearing on the competency issue.\nAlthough the Supreme Court has not prescribed exact standards as to the quantum or nature of the evidence necessary to require a competency hearing, the Court has indicated that consideration of evidence relating to \u201ca defendant\u2019s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial\u201d is appropriate. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. at 180,\nThe psychiatrist\u2019s two hour interview resulted in a report stating that appellant\u2019s \u201ccompetency to stand trial is highly questionable.\u201d That report raised a reasonable doubt about appellant\u2019s competency to stand trial. At that time, the trial court should have ordered a full examination and report pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-305(c) (1987) [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-605(3) (Repl. 1977)], and, if warranted by the report, conducted a determination of fitness to proceed. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-309 (1987) [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-606 (Repl. 1977)]. The failure to do so constitutes reversible error.\nAppellant argues that we should reverse and dismiss because, aside from his confession, \u201cthere was no other proof\u2019 as required by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-89-111(d) (1987) [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2115 (Repl. 1977)].\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-89-111(d) [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2115] provides:\nA confession of a defendant, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that the offense was committed.\nIn the instant case, the other proof that the murders were committed was the discovery of the corpses which showed that both victims had been shot to death. See Morgan v. State, 286 Ark. 264, 691 S.W.2d 164 (1985). Since there was corroborating evidence the murders were committed, we reverse and remand rather than reverse and dismiss.\nNext, we consider the two points likely to arise again upon retrial. In the first of these points, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing State\u2019s exhibits 15, 16, and 17 into evidence.\nThese exhibits are color photographs of the victims taken at the time the bodies were found. The medical examiner stated the pictures would aid him in demonstrating how he established the times of the deaths because the pictures showed lividity and color at a known time. Even though the pictures are inflammatory, they assisted the jury in understanding the testimony, and were properly admissible. Harvey v. State, 292 Ark. 267, 729 S.W.2d 406 (1987).\nAppellant also argues that the trial judge should have given a non-AMCI instruction concerning a prior consistent statement. The trial court ruled correctly. Under A.R.E. Rule 104 it is clear that the judge, not the jury, makes the determination of admissibility of evidence. Once the judge makes that determination, it is a matter of argument of counsel as to the weight to be given that evidence. See Comment, AMI Criminal 200 (1982).\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Naif Samuel Khoury, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lee Taylor Franke, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Lee Duane JACOBS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 87-88\n744 S.W.2d 728\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 22, 1988\nNaif Samuel Khoury, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lee Taylor Franke, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0551-01", "first_page_order": 595, "last_page_order": 599 }