The Supreme Court today again reverses the three-decade-old conviction and death sentence in People v. Lightsey because the superior court erred — for a second time — in finding the defendant was competent to stand trial.
On the first automatic appeal, fourteen years ago, the court unanimously reversed because the superior court allowed the defendant to represent himself when it determined he was mentally competent to stand trial. (People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668.) It did not necessarily require a new trial, however. Instead, the court said, “we see no reason not to ‘at least attempt to have the trial court resolve the matter on remand’ ” and it allowed the superior court to determine whether a “retrospective competency hearing” was “feasible.” If it was feasible, and if the defendant was found to have been competent, the death penalty would be reinstated.
The superior court gave it a shot, finding that — even though almost 20 years had passed — a retrospective competency hearing was feasible, and it found the defendant had been competent to stand trial.
But, stating that “[r]etrospective competency hearings are generally disfavored,” the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Liu concludes, “we would not uphold the trial court’s feasibility determination even under an abuse of discretion standard.” The court holds, “Because of the passage of time, the unavailability of key witnesses, and the fact that the circumstances of the competency hearing in July 1994 — especially the failure to appoint counsel to represent Lightsey — compromised the quality and fairness of the evidence available nearly 20 years later, we hold that the trial court erred in finding that a retrospective competency hearing was feasible.”
