State v. Zorzy

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Haycock

    146 N.H. 5 (N.H. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that "some evidence" must be "more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence" and must be sufficient to support a "rational finding" in favor of the defense (quoted authority omitted)

    He testified, consistent with his reports, that the defendant had a factual, but not a rational, understanding of the proceedings against him and that he did not have sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney. See State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 714 (1993). The State produced no evidence except testimony elicited from Dr. Stenslie during cross-examination and voir dire.

  2. State v. Veale

    158 N.H. 632 (N.H. 2009)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that reputation alone is a sufficient interest to require state due process protection and rejecting the federal “stigma-plus” approach

    Undoubtedly, the state constitutional right to due process protects defendants from standing trial if they are legally incompetent. See State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 714, 622 A.2d 1217 (1993); State v. Champagne, 127 N.H. 266, 270, 497 A.2d 1242 (1985). The defendant's due process challenge, however, does not implicate this right. Indeed, the competency proceedings below resulted in a dismissal of the two indictments, and resulted in no confinement because the defendant was found not to be dangerous.

  3. Johnson v. Commonwealth

    53 Va. App. 79 (Va. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 68 times
    Holding "vague, unsubstantiated representations of counsel did not provide probable cause"

    Other cases help to illustrate this point. In State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 622 A.2d 1217, 1218 (1993), the defendant exhibited disruptive behavior while appearing pro se at a bail hearing. The defendant ignored the court's instructions and contended he was the victim of an illegitimate prosecution.

  4. State v. Salimullah

    172 N.H. 739 (N.H. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    The mental competence of a criminal defendant is an absolute basic condition of a fair trial. State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 714, 622 A.2d 1217 (1993). Due process guarantees under both the Federal and State Constitutions protect defendants from standing trial if they are legally incompetent.

  5. State v. Kincaid

    158 N.H. 90 (N.H. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that arguments not briefed are waived on appeal

    [1-3] “As the trial court is in the best position to evaluate [a] criminal defendant's behavior, we grant deference to its decision regarding the need for a competency hearing.” State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 715, 622 A.2d 1217 (1993). “Due process guarantees under both the Federal and State Constitutions protect defendants from standing trial if they are legally incompetent.”

  6. Cooper v. Oklahoma

    517 U.S. 348 (1996)   Cited 968 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law presuming criminal defendant is competent to stand trial unless he proves incompetence by clear and convincing evidence violates Due Process

    See Lackey v. State, 615 So.2d 145, 151-152 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992); McCarlo v. State, 677 P.2d 1268, 1272 (Alaska App. 1984); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1369(f) (West 1982); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-111(2) (1986); Diaz v. State, 508 A.2d 861, 863 (Del. 1986); Flowers v. State, 353 So.2d 1259, 1270 (Fla.App. 1978); Johnson v. State, 209 Ga. App. 514, 516, 433 S.E.2d 717, 719 (1993); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 704-404 and 704-411 (1993); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, § 5/104-11(c) (1992); Montano v. State, 649 N.E.2d 1053, 1057-1058 (Ind.App. 1995); State v. Rhode, 503 N.W.2d 27, 35 (Iowa App. 1993); State v. Seminary, 165 La. 67, 72, 115 So. 370, 372 (1927); Jolley v. State, 282 Md. 353, 365, 384 A.2d 91, 98 (1978); Commonwealth v. Prater, 420 Mass. 569, 573-574, 651 N.E.2d 833, 837 (1995); Minn. Rule Crim. Proc. 20.01 (1995); Griffin v. State, 504 So.2d 186, 191 (Miss. 1987); State v. Zorzy, 136 N. H. 710, 714-715, 622 A.2d 1217, 1219 (1993); State v. Lambert, 275 N.J. Super. 125, 129, 645 A.2d 1189, 1191 (1994); State v. Chapman, 104 N.M. 324, 327, 721 P.2d 392, 395 (1986); People v. Santos, 43 A.D.2d 73, 75, 349 N.Y.S.2d 439, 442 (1973); State v. Heger, 326 N.W.2d 855, 858 (N.D. 1982); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.37 (1993); State v. Nance, 466 S.E.2d 349, 351 (S.C. 1996); S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-10A-6.1 (1988); Jordan v. State, 124 Tenn. 81, 89, 135 S.W. 327, 329 (1911); Blacklock v. State, 820 S.W.2d 882, 886 (Tex.App. 1991); Utah Code Ann. § 77-15-5(10) (1995); Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-169.1(E) (1995); Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.090 (1994); W. Va. Code § 27-6A-2(b) (1992); Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b) (1985 and Supp. 1995); Loomer v. State, 768 P.2d 1042, 1045 (Wyo. 1989). The burden imposed in the remaining States is unclear.

  7. State v. Smith

    2025 N.H. 1 (N.H. 2025)

    "As the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the criminal defendant's behavior, we grant deference to its decision regarding the need for a competency hearing." State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 715 (1993). We have reviewed the record and do not find sufficient evidence to raise a bona fide doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial.

  8. Hart v. Warden

    171 N.H. 709 (N.H. 2019)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that a defendant's competency to stand trial "may be challenged at any time during the prosecution of a defendant"

    Trial courts are obligated to order an evidentiary hearing whenever there is sufficient doubt concerning a defendant's competence. See State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 714-15, 622 A.2d 1217 (1993) (criminal defendant's due process right not to be tried while incompetent is protected by the procedural requirement that the trial court must, sua sponte, order an evidentiary hearing whenever a legitimate doubt as to a defendant's competency to stand trial arises). Because the Dusky standard applies and may be challenged at any time during the prosecution of a defendant, from initial arraignment to the return of a verdict, the competency to stand trial standard includes a procedural safeguard whenever a bona fide doubt arises as to a defendant's mental competency.

  9. State v. Gourlay

    148 N.H. 75 (N.H. 2002)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that defendant’s expert was properly permitted to offer testimony about defendant's cognitive deficits but not to opine on whether he had the ability to form the requisite intent

    State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 233 (1983). Because the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides no greater protection to the defendant than Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution, we need not conduct a separate due process analysis under the Federal Constitution. See State v. Zorzy, 136 N.H. 710, 714 (1993). A criminal defendant has a constitutional right not to be tried if he is legally incompetent.

  10. State v. Byrge

    2000 WI 101 (Wis. 2000)   Cited 95 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Explaining in the plea withdrawal context that a "direct consequence [of a conviction] . . . is one that has a definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect," while "[c]ollateral consequences are indirect and do not flow from the conviction" such as consequences that "rest[] not with the sentencing court, but instead with a different tribunal or government agency"

    . Cowans, 717 N.E.2d 298, 313 (Ohio 1999) (trial judge's observations of defendant's conduct provided support for conclusion that defendant's competence did not warrant further inquiry); State v. Edwards, 572 N.W.2d 113, 117-18 (S.D. 1997) (facts and circumstances before the trial court indicated that trial court's decision to deny competency hearing did not violate defendant's due process rights); State v. Janto, 986 P.2d 306, 315-16 (Haw. 1999) (overruling mixed question of law and fact standard and adopting "abuse of discretion" standard);State v. Heger, 326 N.W.2d 855, 858 (N.D. 1982) ("Whether or not a defendant is competent to stand trial is a question of fact for the trial judge"); People v. Castro, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 781 (Cal.Ct.App. 2000) (recognizing "general rule on appeal that a finding of competence to stand trial cannot be disturbed"); Reed v. State, 2000 WL 233167 *2 (Tex.App. 2000) (issue whether incompetency exists is left to the discretion of trial judge). See also State v. Zorzy, 622 A.2d 1217, 1219-20 (N.H. 1993); People v. Danielson, 838 P.2d 729, 749 (Cal. 1992); People v. Morino, (Colo.Ct.App. 1987). ¶ 44.