State v. Heddrick
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOwens, J.
¶1 —A defendant’s competency is a necessary prerequisite for a fair criminal trial. Chapter 10.77 RCW outlines procedures courts must follow once any reason to doubt a defendant’s competency arises before a trial judge. Steven Ray Heddrick, Jr., challenges the trial court’s failure to follow statutory procedures in finding him competent to stand trial in felony prosecutions for harassment and custodial assault. Following the statute, the trial court ordered two psychological examinations but did not enter either examination into evidence. Instead, the court found *901Heddrick competent after…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Bell v. ConeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- State v. SisouvanhWashington Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. HeddrickWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. ColeyWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. BrousseauWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. BrousseauWashington Supreme Court · 2011
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.