California, this is what Martin Boags thinks is his evil mastermindery but really is just more of his edddie haskell buffoonery

Trial by Jury


Penal Code section 1369 affords criminal defendants a statutory right to a jury trial on the

issue of mental competence. (Pen. Code, § 1369.) California appellate courts have held

that the jury trial right does not stem from the state or federal constitution. (People v.

Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148; People v.

Harris, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 991.)

Either the defense or the prosecution may demand a jury trial on the question of the

defendant’s mental competence. (People v. Superior Court (McPeters) (1985) 169

Cal.App.3d 796.)

Defense counsel may waive the right to a jury trial on the competency question, even over

the objection of the defendant. (People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 972; see also

People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 495.)

7

The trial court “need not advise the defendant of [the jury trial] right.” (People v.

Masterson, supra, Cal.4th at p. 972.)

Prior to the commencement of a jury trial on the question of the defendant’s competence,

the parties “are entitled only to the number of peremptory challenges provided for in civil

trials, even if the underlying offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment.”

(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 807.)

If either party exercises the jury right, “the court shall charge the jury, instructing them on

all matters of law necessary for the rendering of a verdict.” (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd.

(f).) The model jury instruction for competency trials is found at CALCRIM no. 3451.

The jury must render a unanimous verdict. (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd. (f).)

Presumption of Competence

According to Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (f), “[i]t shall be presumed that the

defendant is mentally competent unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant is mentally incompetent.” (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd. (f); see also

People v. Rells (2000) 22 Cal.4th 860 [“The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause

in fact permits the presumption that the defendant is mentally competent unless he is

proved by a preponderance of the evidence to be otherwise”].)

Civil Discovery Rules Apply To Competency Proceedings

Just as the number of peremptory challenges afforded both parties is governed by civil

law, the rules of civil discovery have also been held to apply in competency trials.

(Baqleh v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 478, 490-491.)

Statements from Court-Ordered Competency Evaluations May Not Be Us