State v. Hough

2022-Ohio-4436 (Ohio 2022) · Supreme Court of Ohio · December 13, 2022 · No. 2021-0998

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2945.37(B) requires a trial court to conduct a competency hearing when the defendant’s competency is raised before trial. It further held that the trial court’s failure to conduct the required hearing was not harmless error in this case because the record contained sufficient indicia of incompetency. The court reversed the appellate judgment, vacated Hough’s convictions, and remanded the cause.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Brunner, J.; O'Connor, C.J.; Donnelly, J.; Stewart, J.; Fischer, J.; Kennedy, J.; DeWine, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 13, 2022
Docket number
2021-0998
Procedural posture
Hough appealed the Tenth District Court of Appeals' affirmance of his criminal convictions. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted jurisdiction over his proposition that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a competency hearing after defense counsel raised competency before trial.
Standard of review
Whether the trial court's failure to hold a competency hearing was harmless error is determined case by case by examining the record for sufficient indicia of incompetency.
Precedential value
Published Supreme Court of Ohio opinion; precedential
Parties
Richard Hough v. State of Ohio
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal proceduredue processstatutory interpretationfourteenth amendment

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether R.C. 2945.37(B) required the trial court to conduct a competency hearing after defense counsel raised the issue of Hough's competency before trial.
  2. Whether the trial court's failure to conduct the mandatory competency hearing was harmless error.
  3. Whether the proper remedy was to vacate Hough's convictions and remand for a possible new trial rather than remand for a retrospective competency determination while leaving the convictions in place.

Holdings

  1. R.C. 2945.37(B) requires a trial court to hold a competency hearing when the issue of the defendant's competency is raised before trial. The statute does not require a particular form of request or a motion setting forth facts meeting a specified evidentiary threshold.
  2. The trial court's failure to hold the required competency hearing was not harmless because the record contained sufficient indicia of Hough's incompetency.
  3. The proper remedy for the failure to hold a required contemporaneous competency hearing is to vacate the convictions and remand for a possible new trial, not to leave the convictions in effect while conducting a retrospective competency determination.

Key quotations

The hearing is mandatory: “a trial court must hold a competency hearing if a request is made before trial.” (¶ 23)
The failure to hold a competency hearing is harmless error where the defendant proceeds to participate in the trial, offers his own testimony in defense and is subject to cross-examination, and the record fails to reveal sufficient indicia of incompetency. (¶ 28)
Hough had the right to a contemporaneous competency hearing under R.C. 2945.37(B). The trial court did not provide to Hough what is required by that statute. (¶ 42)

Factual background

On August 8, 2017, Richard Hough drove the wrong way on a highway exit ramp and struck a vehicle carrying four people; the driver died and three passengers were injured. A blood test conducted pursuant to a warrant detected cocaine and marijuana metabolites. Before trial, defense counsel moved under R.C. 2945.37 for a competency evaluation based on concerns about Hough's psychiatric condition, but the trial court did not address that motion. A later psychiatric evaluation revealed severe mental illness, delusional beliefs, auditory hallucinations, an extremely low full-scale IQ of 59, and significant cognitive deficits, and counsel again expressed competency concerns at sentencing.

Procedural history

Hough was indicted on twelve counts arising from a fatal wrong-way highway collision and pleaded not guilty. Before trial, defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation, but the trial court did not address that motion and held no competency hearing. Hough was convicted on Counts 1 through 9 and sentenced to an aggregate fifteen-year prison term. The Tenth District affirmed, concluding that the failure to hold the hearing was harmless error. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, vacated the convictions, and remanded.

Remand instructions

The judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals is reversed, Hough's convictions are vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court. The state may retry Hough, provided that he is competent to be tried at that time.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…