Teofilo Medina, JR. v. California (505 U.S. 437)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 22, 1992 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 505 U.S. 437 · 112 S. Ct. 2572
- Decided
- June 22, 1992
- Term
- October Term 1991
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. It is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U. S. 162 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375 (1966). The issue in this case is whether the Due Process Clause permits a State to require a defendant who alleges incompetence to stand trial to bear the burden of proving so by a preponderance of the evidence. In 1984, petitioner Teofilo Medina, dr., stole a gun from a pawnshop in Santa Ana, California. In the weeks that followed, he held up two gas stations, a drive-in dairy, and a market, murdered three employees of those establishments, attempted to rob a fourth employee, and shot at two passersby who attempted to follow his getaway car. Petitioner was apprehended less than one month after his crime spree began and was charged with a number of criminal offenses, including three counts of first-degree murder. Before trial, petitioner’s counsel moved for a competency hearing under Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1368 (West 1982), on the ground that he was unsure whether petitioner had the ability to participate in the criminal proceedings against him. 1 Record 320. Under California law, “[a] person cannot be tried or adjudged to punishment while such person is mentally incompetent.” Cal. Penal…
Excerpt of a 28,644-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.