Kern (Stephen) v. State ( 2014 )

 examination, present other evidence pertaining to the defendant's
competence, and cross-examine each other's witnesses, MRS 178.415(3),
and where ultimately the district court makes its finding of competence or
incompetence, NRS 178.415(4). Here, the record reveals that the district
court sent Kern to Lake's Crossing, Doctors Henson and Hiller examined
Kern and found him competent to stand trial, the doctors' reports were
received by the district court in open court, and Kern acknowledged that
he was not challenging the doctors' findings. We conclude from this record
that Kern was not deprived of his due process or confrontation rights; he
merely chose not to exercise them.
Kern also argues that the district court's failure to halt the
trial and order a formal reevaluation of his competency violated his due
process rights. Kern asserts that the district court should have halted the
trial on the first day when he indicated that getting into civilian clothes
would throw him "off course" and again on the fourth day when he
indicated that he was taking medicine and it was interfering with his
ability to comprehend. Kern maintains that even though a pretrial
competency proceeding found that he was competent to stand trial, the
question of competency remains open throughout the trial and may be
raised at any time.
Competence [is] measured by the defendant's
ability to understand the nature of the criminal
charges and the nature and purpose of the court
proceedings, and by his or her ability to aid and
assist his or her counsel in the defense at any time
during the proceedings with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding.
Scarbo v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 118, 122, 206 P.3d 975,
977 (2009). If doubt arises as to the competence of a defendant during a
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
trial, the district court must suspend the trial until the question of
competence is resolved. NRS 178.405(1). "A hearing to determine a
defendant's competency is constitutionally and statutorily required where
a reasonable doubt exists on the issue. [However, w]hether such a doubt
is raised is within the discretion of the trial court." Melchor-Gloria v.
State, 99 Nev. 174, 180, 660 P.2d 109, 113 (1983) (citation omitted). Here,
the record reveals that the district court questioned Kern on the first day
of the trial regarding his appearance in jail garb and found that he was
competent, and it questioned Kern on the fourth day of the trial about
medication that he had taken and found that there was no substantive
due process violation. The district court's findings are supported by the
record, and we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in this regard.
Kern further argues that cumulative error deprived him of a
fair trial and requires reversal of his conviction. However, Kern has failed
to demonstrate any error, and we conclude that he was not deprived of a
fair trial due to cumulative error.
Having concluded that Kern is not entitled to relief, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Pickering
,J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Linda A. Norvell Marquis
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e