Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 Ariz. 206

417 P.2d 530

State v. Westbrook

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1966

Arizona Supreme Court · decided 1966-07-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““* * * there appears to have been no hearing or inquiry into the issue of his competence to waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and proceed, as he did, to conduct his own defense. ‘The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ ””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Nicastro

Relies on Westbrook v. Arizona · State v. Westbrook

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-07-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1998

12 state decisions

701966197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The judgment of conviction in this cause having heretofore been affirmed, State v. Westbrook, 99 Ariz. 30, 406 P.2d 388, and subsequently reversed in-the Supreme Court of the United States, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429, and remanded to this Court for proceedings consistent with the opinion therein, it is therefore ordered that the Superior Court of Maricopa County cause, three disinterested psychiatrists to-examine the defendant Thomas A. West-brook pursuant to Rule 250, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., and after hearing determine:

¶2 (1) Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to understand the proceedings against him,

¶3 (2) Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective so as to be unable to-assist in his defense, and

¶4 (3) Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to intelligently and competently waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense.

¶5 If the defendant is sane and not mentally defective in any of the foregoing particulars, the superior court shall proceed to a retrial on the charge set forth in the information. If the defendant is insane or mentally defective in any of the foregoing particulars, he shall be committed to the Arizona State Hospital at Phoenix, Arizona, *207 there to remain until such time as he is sane and not mentally defective in any of the foregoing particulars and thereafter he shall be retried on the charge set forth in the information.

¶6 It is ordered that W. Edward Morgan, attorney as law, is hereby appointed as counsel for the defendant with directions to act for and on his behalf in all proceedings in this cause and until such time as he is relieved by further order of this Court.

¶7 NOTE: Justice LORNA E. LOCKWOOD did not participate in the determination of this decision.

/101/ariz/206 · .json · Public domain