You are here: / / No Constitutional Right to a Sua Sponte Inquiry Into Defendant’s Mental H...
, ,

No Constitutional Right to a Sua Sponte Inquiry Into Defendant’s Mental Health Before Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a defendant may be competent to stand trial but not competent to proceed pro se, but determined the trial court did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights by not conducting a sua sponte inquiry into his mental health when he asked proceed pro se:

Defendant submits that [Indiana v Edwards (554 US 164 [2008])] requires states to adopt a two-tiered competency standard — a baseline for competency to stand trial and a separate, heightened standard for competency to proceed pro se at trial — and compels a competency hearing before a defendant may be permitted to proceed pro se. But we do not view Edwards as imposing such a requirement — and our interpretation is in accord with the federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue … . Although a court has discretion to require representation by counsel in certain circumstances despite a request to proceed pro se, it does not follow that the Constitution is offended if that discretion is not exercised. People v Stone, 5, CtApp 2-13-14

 

You might also like
CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT.
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT AND PLANNING OF THE MURDER OF DEFENDANT’S WIFE AND MOTHER-IN-LAW DID NOT CONSTITUTE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER (CT APP).
Disclaimer Notice Sent to Insureds’ Insurer, But Not to Insureds, Invalid
Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Home Justified by Exigent Circumstances—Juror’s Temporary Absence from the Trial (During Which the Trial Was Adjourned) and the Juror’s Inaccurate Statement He Had Discussed His Absence with the Judge Did Not Warrant a “Buford” Hearing or Disqualification
THE EVIDENCE OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE WAS SUFFICIENT AND EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DISORDER WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DEFENSE WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE (CT APP).
Issuer of Excess Policy Was Required (by the Terms of the Policy) to Pay “All Sums,” Including Interest, Over and Above the Policy-Limit Paid Out Under the Primary Policy
WHERE A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN RESENTENCED BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS ILLEGAL, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE CONTROLS FOR DETERMINATION OF PREDICATE FELONY STATUS (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE AFTER ELEVEN JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED, WAS PROPERLY REJECTED AS UNTIMELY (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Entitled to Jury Charge on Extreme Emotional Disturbance Despite Lack... Two-Year Time Limit On Bringing Suit Against Insurer for Cost of Replacement...