State v. Coley
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
¶1 There is a general presumption in this state that a defendant is competent to stand trial and assist in his own defense. Based on this presumption of competency, the defendant bears the burden of proof to show that he is incompetent to stand trial. Here, the court had concluded that the defendant was incompetent and sent him for evaluation and treatment. In the follow-up competency hearing, the court imposed the burden to prove incompetency on the defendant after erroneously concluding that the most recent order declared the defendant competent. We conclude that this was structural error…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Medina v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- State v. BennWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. LevyWashington Supreme Court · 2006
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sibug v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- State v. P.E.T.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- State Of Washington v. John W. Jackson, Sr.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- Sibug v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- State Of Washington v. Charles FeldCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.