<h6>PEOPLE v. ROGERS</h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6> </h6> <br /> <h6 align="center">Filed 8/21/06</h6> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p>THE PEOPLE, )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Respondent, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S005502</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) </p> <br /> <p>DAVID KEITH ROGERS, )</p> <br /> <p> ) Kern County</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 33477</p> <br /> <p>_______________________________________ )<u></u></p> <br /> <p><b>Continue from Part I ……. </b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p>A trial court's decision whether or not to hold a <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">competence hearing</a> is entitled to deference, because the court has the opportunity to observe the defendant during trial. (See <i>People v. Danielson, supra,</i> 3 Cal.4th at p. 727; see also <i>Drope v. Missouri, supra,</i> 420 U.S. at p. 181.) The failure to declare a doubt and conduct a hearing when there is substantial <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">evidence of incompetence</a>, however, requires reversal of the judgment of conviction. (<i>Drope v. Missouri, supra, </i>420 U.S. at p. 181; <i>Pate v. Robinson, supra, </i>383 U.S. at pp. 384-386; <i>People v. Blair, supra, </i>36<i> </i>Cal.4th at p. 711.) </p> <br /> <p> Defendant contends there was substantial evidence of his incompetence before the trial court. Defendant first points to testimony, received both during the preliminary hearing and later during the guilt phase, indicating that defendant was depressed and suicidal in jail and had been placed on a <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">suicide watch</a>. Dr. Bird testified defendant scored extremely high on psychological tests designed to assess suicide risk. Dr. Glaser and Dr. Franz agreed defendant was an extreme suicide risk. Although the risk was most elevated immediately following defendant's arrest, the summer before trial defendant had hoarded razor blades and strips of cloth in his jail cell. Dr. Franz testified the suicide risk continued up until the time of trial. </p> <br /> <p><b> </b>Actual suicide attempts or suicidal ideation, in combination with other factors, may constitute <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">substantial evidence</a> raising a bona fide doubt regarding a defendant's competence to stand trial.<b> </b>(See <i>Drope v. Missouri, supra, </i>420 U.S. at pp. 166-167, 179-180; <i>Moore v. United States </i>(9th Cir. 1972) 464 F.2d 663, 665-666; see also<i> Pate v. Robinson, supra,</i> 383 U.S. at p. 381.) Nonetheless, in contrast to the cases cited above, here defendant's suicidal tendencies did not constitute substantial evidence of incompetence, for they were not accompanied by bizarre behavior, the testimony of a <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">mental health professional</a> regarding competence, or any other indications of an inability to understand the proceedings or to assist counsel. (Cf. <i>People v. Ramos, supra, </i>34 Cal.4th at p. 509 [defendant's hoarding of medication in apparent preparation for a suicide attempt did not give rise to a doubt regarding his competence to stand trial].) </p> <br /> <p> Defendant points out that his counsel moved to suppress his <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">tape-recorded confession</a> on the ground defendant was not â€