Opinion
No. 05-01-00487-CR.
Opinion Filed April 8, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. MA01-48394-L. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices MOSELEY and O'NEILL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Troy Jerome Reed of assaulting his wife, Rita, and assessed punishment at 60 days' confinement and a fine of $2,000. Reed appeals. In a single point, he asserts the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial and his motion requesting a psychiatric evaluation for himself. The background of this case and the evidence adduced at trial are well-known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. Rs. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm. Reed asserts the trial court should have granted his motions for mistrial and his request for a psychiatric evaluation after he had an emotional outburst during Rita's testimony. Reed also asserts a mistrial should have been granted because Reed's counsel exclaimed "Jesus Christ" during Reed's outburst. We will not disturb a trial court's ruling denying a motion for mistrial unless the court abused its discretion. Dooley v. State, 65 S.W.3d 840, 841 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd). A trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for mistrial when a defendant's misconduct interfered with the jury's verdict. See Miller v. State, 741 S.W.2d 383, 391 (Tex.Crim. App. 1987). A person is incompetent to stand trial if that person lacks "sufficient present ability to consult with [his] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or . . . [if the person lacks] a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46.02, § 1A(1), (2) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Although a defendant is not required to prove he is incompetent to be entitled to a psychiatric evaluation, he must raise an issue of competence by providing the court with some evidence to support a finding of incompetency; therefore, where there is no evidence the defendant did not understand the proceedings or could not assist in the defense, the court does not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint a mental health expert. See Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385, 394-95 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Porter v. State, 623 S.W.2d 374, 380-81 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). If the issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial is raised, the trial court may appoint a mental health expert to examine the defendant with regard to his competency to stand trial. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 46.02, § 3(a). As with a motion for mistrial, we will not disturb a trial court's decision to deny a motion requesting a psychiatric evaluation unless the court abused its discretion. Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864, 885 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). After reviewing the record, we conclude neither Reed's emotional outburst nor his counsel's response to the outburst interfered with the jury's verdict. See Miller, 741 S.W.2d at 391. The evidence supporting the verdict was overwhelming. Furthermore, the record does not reflect that Reed did not understand the proceedings or could not assist in his defense. See Moore, 999 S.W.2d at 395; Porter, 623 S.W.2d at 381. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reed's motions; thus, we overrule Reed's single point. See Bigby, 892 S.W.2d at 885; Dooley, 65 S.W.3d at 841. Having overruled Reed's single point, we affirm the trial court's judgment.