State v. Garfoot
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Dusky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Culombe v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Nottelson v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.