Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
People v. Mixon
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 27, 1990No. B036192Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
JOHNSON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in parts 2 through 6 of the majority opinion.
*1490However, I find I must respectfully dissent from part 1 in which the majority holds the presumption a defendant is mentally competent to stand trial should apply at a hearing on the restoration of competency of a defendant the court has previously adjudicated incompetent to stand trial. In my view, once a defendant has been judicially determined to be incompetent to stand trial the People bear the burden of proving the defendant has been restored to competency.
In California, a person cannot be tried…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Morrison v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- People v. MedinaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- United States v. John Digilio, in No. 75-2218. Appeal of Harry Lupo, in No. 75-2219. Appeal of Peter Szwandrak, in No. 75-2220Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.