State v. Thompson

988 N.W.2d 149

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Nicholas Scott THOMPSON, Appellant.

A22-0737

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed March 20, 2023

Denied June 20, 2023

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Ed Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Kristi L. Meyeraan, Jackson County Attorney, Jackson, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Anders J. Erickson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.

OPINION

FRISCH, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order finding him not competent to participate in his criminal proceedings. He argues that the district court erred in allocating the burden of proof to establish competence, that he is competent, that the district court ignored evidence of his competence, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the competency proceedings. We reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to conduct a new competency hearing, allocating the burden of proof to appellant to establish his competence and to determine, based on all of the evidence presented, whether appellant established his competence by a preponderance of the evidence.

FACTS

This is the third pretrial appeal in this matter. In September 2018, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Nicholas Thompson with one count of second-degree intentional murder and two counts of second-degree unintentional felony murder for allegedly killing his mother. In October, the district court sua sponte ordered a competency evaluation of Thompson pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01. The district court ordered the evaluation based on the court's knowledge of Thompson's "history of mental health issues," which included "evidence of psychosis and hallucinations."

In November 2018, Thompson participated in a competency evaluation conducted by Dr. Matara Wright. Dr. Wright determined that Thompson understood the legal proceedings and charges against him but concluded that Thompson was not competent because he was not able to rationally assist in his own defense. Thompson filed a pro se objection to Dr. Wright's opinion and requested a contested competency hearing. The state also objected to Dr. Wright's opinion and asked the district court to order a second Rule 20.01 examination, which the district court granted over Thompson's objection.

In February 2019, Thompson participated in the next competency evaluation, conducted by Dr. Dawn Peuschold. Dr. Peuschold likewise concluded that Thompson was not competent because he was "probably incapable of rationally consulting with his defense counsel" or "participating in his defense." The state asked the district court to find that Thompson was not competent. Thompson objected to both reports, asserted that he was competent, and requested a contested competency hearing.

The district court issued an order finding Thompson not competent without conducting a competency hearing. Thompson appealed, and we reversed the district court's order for failing to hold a contested competency hearing as required under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 5(a)(1). State v. Thompson , No. A19-0787 (Minn. App. Mar. 3, 2020) (Thompson I ) (order op.).

On remand, the district court held a contested competency hearing, and the district court again found Thompson not competent. Thompson appealed and we again reversed, holding that the "the entire [competency] hearing was procedurally invalid" because the district court erred by allowing Thompson to represent himself. State v. Thompson , No. A20-1232, 2021 WL 3136728, at *4 (Minn. App. July 26, 2021) ( Thompson II ), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 27, 2021).

During the pendency of these appeals, Thompson was civilly committed as mentally ill and dangerous. In re Civ. Commitment of Thompson , No. A21-0785, 2021 WL 5764240, at *1 (Minn. App. Dec. 6, 2021) ( Thompson III ). By July 2020, the district court issued a Jarvis order requiring Thompson take certain medication.¹ The district court continued to receive periodic progress reports on Thompson's competency as required by Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 7.

Between June 2019 and November 2021, the district court received eight written competency reports from four different examiners. Thompson refused to participate in most of the evaluations. All but one of those reports concluded that Thompson was not competent. The outlier report did not set forth a conclusion about Thompson's competence because Thompson refused to be interviewed, and the examiner concluded there was not adequate information to render an opinion with sufficient certainty. And in the November 2021 competency report, the examiner concluded based on historical records that Thompson was not competent but noted that she could not assess Thompson's competence with any degree of certainty because his lack of participation in the evaluation limited her ability to evaluate him.

In January 2022, following our second remand, the district court held another contested competency hearing. Thompson was represented by counsel. At the hearing, Thompson argued that he was competent. The state informed the district court that it "has no dog in this fight" and that it was "not asserting a position one way or the other" as to competence. The district court received testimony only from Thompson at the contested hearing but also received all the competency reports.

Thompson testified about his ability to rationally consult with his trial counsel in the underlying criminal prosecution, his appellate counsel, and his counsel in the competency proceeding. He testified that he was taking his medication and participating in group therapy. On cross-examination, the state elicited testimony from Thompson about certain delusional or conspiratorial beliefs and his refusal to cooperate in successive evaluations. At the conclusion of the hearing, Thompson's counsel represented to the district court that Thompson was able to rationally consult with counsel in the current proceeding.

The district court issued an order concluding that Thompson was not competent. It found that Thompson had not provided any information apart from answering "leading questions from his attorney" about his ability to rationally consult with counsel. The district court noted Thompson's criminal trial counsel did not testify at the competency hearing. The district court found that "there is no evidence before the court that [Thompson] is currently able to rationally discuss with his counsel any potential defenses or the possible outcomes of his case." The district court also stated, "it is not clear where the burden lies when the defendant objects to evaluations finding him incompetent and the State takes no position on his competency." The district court concluded "[i]f the State is not seeking to have Thompson be found competent, it should not bear the burden of proving his competency." The district court immediately continued, stating "[t]he greater weight of the evidence must show that Thompson is competent to stand trial." The district court determined that "[w]ithout a concrete medical opinion, no affirmative opinions of competency, and Thompson's testimony the Court cannot find that there is clear and convincing evidence that Thompson is currently competent to proceed." The district court issued an order concluding that Thompson was not competent because he was not then-able to consult with and assist his counsel in the criminal proceeding.

Thompson appeals.

ISSUES

I. Did the district court err in its allocation of the burden of proof in determining Thompson's competence?

II. Did the district court clearly err in finding Thompson was not competent?

ANALYSIS

I. The district court erred in its allocation of the burden of proof.

Thompson argues that the district court erred in placing the burden on him to prove his competence. The state argues that the district court did not place the burden of proof on Thompson to establish his competence, but rather made competency findings without resolving the question of which party bears the burden of proof. We first resolve who bears the burden of proof to establish competence in a contested competency proceeding where the defendant seeks a determination that they are competent and then consider the district court's allocation of the burden of proof in the underlying proceeding. The "determination of which party bears the burden of proof[ ] and the interpretation of the competency rule of procedure are questions of law that we review de novo." State v. Curtis , 921 N.W.2d 342, 346 (Minn. 2018).

The question of which party bears the burden of proof in a contested competency proceeding when a defendant asserts their own competence has not been resolved in Minnesota. In Curtis , the supreme court left open the question of the allocation of the burden of proof when a defendant's competence has been questioned and the state is not the party asserting that a defendant is competent. See id. at 347 n.4 ("[I]n this case, the State is the party advocating that the defendant is competent. Accordingly, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the allocation of the burden of proof would be different if the State were the party challenging the defendant's competence."). But the reasoning in Curtis appears dispositive of the burden-of-proof issue here.

In Curtis , the supreme court held that, "[w]here a defendant's competency is disputed," Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 5, creates "a presumption of incompetence." Id. at 348. The supreme court concluded that "by creating a presumption of incompetence, the rule necessarily requires that the State—the party claiming Curtis is competent to stand trial—must actually prove the defendant's competence to stand trial. " Id. (emphasis added). The supreme court reasoned that Rule 20.01, subdivision 5, "is consistent with our conclusion in Ganpat that when...