Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Garfoot

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1997No. 94-1817-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceShirley S. Abrahamson, Chief Justice

¶ 31. (concurring). I conclude, as does the majority, that the circuit court properly held that the State failed to prove that Garfoot was competent to stand trial. I write separately because I disagree with the majority's statement of the standard of appellate review.

¶ 32. The majority fails to recognize the proper standard of review because it fails to recognize the constitutional basis of the competency inquiry. A conviction of an incompetent person violates the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the due process clause of the *230Fourteenth Amendment. Pote v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, 385…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Dusky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Culombe v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  5. Nottelson v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API