State v. Hollars

376 N.C. 432

852 S.E.2d 135

STATE of North Carolina

v.Jack Howard HOLLARS

No. 324A19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2020

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, Solicitor General,¹ Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor General, and Nicholas S. Brod, Assistant Solicitor General, for the State-appellant.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

MORGAN, Justice.

Defendant was arrested on 10 February 2012 for allegedly sexually assaulting his stepdaughter for a period consisting of the late 1970s and early 1980s. He was brought to trial on 8 January 2018 for three counts each of second-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child following almost six years of fluctuating determinations of defendant's competency to stand trial. At the end of the third day of the trial, defense counsel apprised the trial court of a brief conversation which the attorney had just had with defendant and, based on concerns that the exchange raised with defense counsel, he asked the trial court to inquire into defendant's competency. No inquiry of defendant was performed by the trial court at the time, the trial was recessed for the day shortly thereafter, and the trial court stated that the matter would be addressed on the next morning. During the inception of the trial proceedings on the following day and upon the trial court's inquiry to defense counsel about any more information or arguments about defendant's capacity, defense counsel replied that there were no existing concerns. The trial resumed, and upon its conclusion, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all six charges on 12 January 2018. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the events on the third day of trial combined with defendant's lengthy history of mental illness, which included periods of incompetence to stand trial, created a duty upon the trial court to inquire sua sponte into the competency of defendant to stand trial.

See State v. Hollars , 266 N.C. App. 534, 537–38, 833 S.E.2d 5, 7–8 (2019). The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence existed before the trial court to create a bona fide doubt as to defendant's competency, and therefore the trial court's failure to make inquiry into defendant's competency at trial violated his due-process rights. Id. at 542, 833 S.E.2d at 10. The State appeals to our Court based on the dissent of a member of the Court of Appeals panel in which the dissenting judge opined that there was no bona fide doubt as to defendant's competency, and therefore defendant's due-process rights were not implicated by the trial court's lack of inquiry into the matter. See id. at 545, 833 S.E.2d at 11–12 (Berger, J., dissenting). We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals majority that substantial evidence existed so as to create a bona fide doubt about defendant's competency. As a result, we affirm the decision of the lower appellate court which includes remanding the matter to the trial court pursuant to the instructions contained within the Court of Appeals majority opinion.

Factual and Procedural Background

In January 2012, the alleged victim in this case—a female minor—reported to the Watauga County Sheriff's Office that for a period of time spanning the late 1970s and early 1980s, when she was between twelve and fifteen years of age, defendant sexually assaulted the minor on virtually a weekly basis. Defendant was initially arrested and charged with a single count of statutory sexual offense on 10 February 2012. Subsequently, a grand jury indicted defendant on three counts of second-degree sexual offense and three counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. Following his arrest, defendant initially waived his right to court-appointed counsel at his first appearance on 23 February 2012, but the trial court nevertheless appointed counsel to defendant two months later, citing its observation that defendant was unresponsive to questioning by the trial court at defendant's probable cause hearing on 23 April 2012. Defendant's appointed counsel met with defendant while defendant was in custody in the Watauga County Jail on 1 May 2012. Defense counsel reported to the trial court three days later that defendant had presented a scattered and random thought process and had made multiple paranoid statements concerning God and the effects of exposure to chemicals on his brain during defendant's tenure in the Marine Corps. On 4 May 2012, the trial court ordered Daymark Recovery Services to complete a forensic evaluation of defendant to determine his competency to stand trial. This assessment of defendant became the first in a series of seven evaluations which are pertinent to this appeal.²

Dr. Hawkinson with Daymark Recovery Services completed his evaluation report on 9 May 2012, which noted that defendant appeared "psychotic and delusional" with a "limited ability to cooperate in even basic discussion of his case." Based on his observations, Dr. Hawkinson concluded that defendant was incompetent to stand trial. Following the receipt and review of the Hawkinson 5/9/2012 report, the trial court ordered that defendant be committed to the custody of Central Regional Hospital in Butner, North Carolina, or another designated facility for further evaluation and safekeeping. Once in the custody of Central Regional Hospital, another competency evaluation report was authored by Dr. Bartholomew on 9 August 2012. While the Bartholomew 8/9/2012 report agreed with the Hawkinson 5/9/2012 report that defendant was incompetent to proceed to trial, Dr. Bartholomew also noted that defendant "may gain capacity if he receives mental health treatment." Upon review of the Bartholomew 8/9/2012 report, the trial court entered an order finding defendant incapable to proceed and ordered defendant to be committed to Broughton Hospital in Morganton, North Carolina.

During his time at Broughton Hospital, defendant responded well to his provider's efforts to have defendant engage in mental health treatment, medication, and vocational occupations like exercise classes and work duties. Seven months after defendant's commitment to Broughton Hospital, Dr. Bartholomew again evaluated defendant for his capacity to stand trial and detailed the results of the evaluation in a report dated 14 May 2013. The Bartholomew 5/14/2013 report concluded that, due in part to defendant's adherence to a medication regimen, defendant "demonstrated an adequate understanding of the nature of criminal legal processes" and was "able to assist in his defense in a rational and reasonable manner." Dr. Bartholomew considered defendant to be capable to proceed to trial at this juncture. On 3 September 2013, a Watauga County grand jury handed down a first set of indictments, charging defendant with four counts each of statutory sex offense and taking indecent liberties with a child; correspondingly, the trial court appointed new trial counsel to represent defendant. Superseding indictments were issued on 4 May 2015 which charged defendant with three counts each of second-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a child.

On 15 December 2014, defendant was transported from Broughton Hospital to the Watauga County Jail to discuss a plea offer with his appointed counsel. While defendant first appeared to understand his circumstances in his initial discussions with counsel upon defendant's arrival at the jail, defense counsel noted that when he met with defendant on the following day and defendant was "unable to discuss plea or trial options and insisted his millionaire sister would spend thousands" on his defense, despite the fact that defendant had no sisters with such resources. Defense counsel relayed this information to the trial court in open court on 2 March 2015, upon which the trial court granted the request of defense counsel for another competency evaluation of defendant. Pursuant to the trial court's order, Dr. Bartholomew conducted another evaluation of defendant. Dr. Bartholomew's report of 14 April 2015 again concluded that defendant was competent to proceed to trial, while explaining that defendant's confusing statements at the Watauga County Jail were likely attributable to a temporary decomposition of his mental faculties due to the change in his sleeping arrangements. However, Dr. Bartholomew predicated his determination that defendant was competent to stand trial at the time that Dr. Bartholomew signed the Bartholomew 4/14/15 report on two caveats: first, Dr. Bartholomew advised that defendant should be housed at Broughton Hospital and transported to court each day for the duration of the trial in order to prevent a similar change in mental state as witnessed by defense counsel in December 2014; and second, Dr. Bartholomew noted that defendant's "condition may deteriorate with the stress of trial so vigilance is suggested if his case proceeds to trial."

Dr. Bartholomew testified about the predications and conclusions in his report at a competency hearing held by the trial court on 5 May 2015. At the close of the hearing, the trial court acknowledged Dr. Bartholomew's determination of defendant's competency but advised that the conditions asserted in the Bartholomew 4/14/2015 report required "the [c]ourt to give [defendant] special treatment which is not normally considered in other criminal actions." Concerned about the conditional nature of Dr. Bartholomew's determination of defendant's competency, on 27 July 2015 the trial court ordered an additional independent forensic evaluation to be completed by Dr. Bellard. Following his completion of an evaluation of defendant which was conducted pursuant to the trial court's order, Dr. Bellard issued a report on 4 November 2015 in which the examiner concluded that, while defendant experienced improved mental capacity while housed at Broughton Hospital, defendant's "difficulty...