Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Ohio St. 3d 1504

State v. Berry

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1996

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1996-01-25

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2008

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A capital defendant is mentally competent to abandon any and all challenges to his death sentence ... if he has the mental capacity to understand the choice between life and death and to make a knowing and intelligent decision not to pursue further remedies. The defendant must fully comprehend the ramifications of his decision, and must possess the ‘ability to reason logically,’ i.e., to choose ‘means which relate logically to his ends.’”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Franklin v. Francis, 624 F. Supp. 2d 709 - Cowans v. Bagley

Relies on Whitmore v. Arkansas · Rees v. Peyton · Gilmore v. Utah

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-01-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Cuyahoga County, No. 60531. This court has ordered that an independent psychiatric expert be appointed to determine appellant’s competency to waive further legal proceedings challenging the death penalty imposed upon him. In furtherance of that objective,

¶2IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, effective January 24, 1996, that Dr. Phillip J. Resnick, the court-appointed psychiatrist, be given copies of and access to all of appellant’s medical and psychological records and reports, wherever located.

¶3IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, effective January 24,1996, that counsel for the appellee and counsel for the appellant both cooperate with and assist Dr. Resnick by giving him copies of and access to all information relevant to appellant’s competency to waive further proceedings.

¶4FURTHERMORE, IT IS ORDERED, by the court, effective January 24, 1996, that, in evaluating appellant’s competency to waive further legal proceedings challenging the death penalty imposed against him, Dr. Resnick apply the following standard:

¶5A capital defendant is mentally competent to abandon any and all challenges to his death sentence, including appeals, state post-conviction collateral review, and federal habeas corpus, if he has the mental capacity to understand the choice between life and death and to make a knowing and intelligent decision not to pursue further remedies. See Rees v. Peyton (1966), 384 U.S. 312, 86 S.Ct. 1505, 16 L.Ed.2d 583; Gilmore v. Utah (1976), 429 U.S. 1012, 97 S.Ct. 436, 50 L.Ed.2d 632; Whitmore v. Arkansas (1990), 495 U.S. 149, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135; Franz v. State (1988), 296 Ark. 181, 188-89, 754 S.W.2d 839, 843; Grasso v. State (Okla.Crim.App.1993), 857 P.2d 802, 806; State v. Dodd (1992), 120 Wash.2d 1, 22-23, 838 P.2d 86, 97. The defendant must fully comprehend the ramifications of his decision, Cole v. State (1985), 101 Nev. 585, 588, 707 P.2d 545, 547, and must possess the “ability to reason logically,” i.e., to choose “means which relate logically to his ends.” State v. Bailey (Del.Super.1986), 519 A.2d 132, 137-138.

/74/ohiost3d/1504 · .json · Public domain