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
Exculpatory Evidence Provided by Co-Defendant Should Not Have Been Struck from the Record When Co-Defendant Asserted His Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
Charging the Defendant with the Use of Two Weapons During a Single Incident Did Not Render the Indictment Duplicitous—Only Proof of the Use of One Weapon Was Required
NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP).
Father Estopped from Denying Paternity
CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED.
In Extraordinary Circumstances, Testimony by Two-Way Video Conference Can Be Used In Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Proceedings
RESOLVING A SPLIT OF AUTHORITY, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPEAL A CUSTODY DETERMINATION (CT APP).
Burden Upon Police to Determine Whether Defendant Represented by Counsel Explained

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...