2013 Ark. App. 402 - Porta v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Substantial evidence” is a term of art. “Evidence” encompasses all information properly before the court, whether it is in the form of testimony or exhibits formally admitted or it is in the form of medical reports or other kinds of reports that have been filed with the court. Evidence is “substantial” if it raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s competency to stand trial. Once there is such evidence from any source, there is a doubt that cannot be dispelled by resort to conflicting evidence. The function of the trial court in applying Pate’s substantial evidence test is not to determine the-ultimate issue: Is the defendant competent to stand trial? Its sole function is to decide whether there is any evidence which, assuming its truth, raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s competency. At any time that such evidence appears, the trial court sua sponte must order an evidentiary hearing on the competency issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lewis v. State

2. “[a] contemporaneous objection is generally required to preserve an issue for appeal, even an issue of constitutional dimensions. Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384 , 108 S.W.3d 592 (2003). Citing Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980), we explained in Vilayvanh v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 561 , 2012 WL 4833805 , that it is possible, under very rare and extreme circumstances, that a trial court may be obliged to intervene sua sponte to correct a serious problem. Once such circumstance occurs when there is a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s competency to stand trial, as discussed in Jacobs v. State, 294 Ark. 551, 553-54 , 744 S.W.2d 728, 729-30 (1988): The conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , [ 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 ] (1966). See also Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-302 (1987).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lewis v. State