Opinion
24-K-456
10-10-2024
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SALEH OMAR IN RE SALEH OMAR
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., DIVISION "P", NUMBER 18-7748
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Stephen J. Windhorst
WRIT DENIED
Defendant, Saleh Omar, was indicted in 2018 for second-degree murder. In March of 2020, a court-appointed sanity commission determined that Mr. Omar was incompetent to proceed to trial. Accordingly, the trial court remanded Mr. Omar to East Louisiana Mental Health System (ELMHS) for restoration. In January 2022, the trial court ordered defendant medicated for restoration, and in August 2022, the trial court ordered another sanity evaluation. The sanity commission's December 2022 report again found Mr. Omar to be incompetent to stand trial; he again was committed to ELMHS for restoration.
According to the writ application, doctors at ELMHS determined in February 2024 that Mr. Omar was competent to stand trial. Thus, on March 22, 2024, Mr. Omar was returned to the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center. On May 1, 2024, the sanity commission conducted another evaluation of Mr. Omar with defense counsel present. Notwithstanding the February 2024 determination by ELMHS that Mr. Omar was competent, the May 5, 2024 sanity commission report determined that Mr. Omar was incompetent to stand trial.
On July 3, 2024, the trial court conducted a competency hearing, at which Dr. David Hale, a psychologist from ELMHS, and Dr. Richard Richoux, a forensic psychiatrist and member of the sanity commission, testified. Their reports were entered into evidence. After taking the matter under consideration, the trial court determined that Mr. Omar was competent to stand trial.
Mr. Omar now seeks review of that ruling, arguing that the court abused its discretion in light of the commission's most recent finding that he was not competent. Defense counsel further argues that it is impossible for Mr. Omar to communicate effectively and to assist in his own defense given his paranoia.
Louisiana law presumes that a defendant is competent to proceed. La. R.S. 15:432; State v. MacCracken, 02-1163 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/29/03), 845 So.2d 1104, 1109. The defendant has the burden to prove his incapacity to stand trial by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. A reviewing court owes the trial court's determination as to the defendant's competency great weight. State v. Carmouche, 01-405 (La. 5/14/02), 872 So.2d 1020, 1041. As such, we review the trial court's competency determination for an abuse of discretion. Id.
The trial court heard testimony from Dr. Hale of ELMHS and from Dr. Richoux of the sanity commission, evidently giving greater weight to Dr. Hale's competency determination, rendered after Mr. Omar's second extended confinement at ELMHS for treatment. As the record evidence supports the trial court's determination, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny defendant's writ application.
SMC
FHW
SJW