State of Arizona v. Curtis T. Bunton

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

¶ 1 After contested competency hearings, appellee Curtis Bunton was found to be “not competent and not restorable.” On appeal, the state argues the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing the state’s doctor to conduct an additional examination of Bun-ton. The state further contends that A.R.S. § 13-4505(D) should be interpreted to allow the state to examine a defendant regardless of the court’s findings. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining…