Flesche v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that trial court “was authorized to and did find the evidence of mental impairment incredible” and that the court was not required to “accept the testimony of relatives” regarding the defendant’s mental state
• “As a first-hand observer of [defendant’s] demeanor, the court was well positioned to determine the need for a psychiatric evaluation.”
• throughout proceedings the defendant displayed no outbursts or episodes of disorientation, and he responded coherently to questions
• throughout proceedings the defendant displayed no outbursts or episodes of disorientation, and he responded coherently to questions
• defendant’s “somewhat rambling but coherent testimony” and “vague answers” did not amount to demeanor requiring trial court to order competency evaluation sua sponte, where both trial court and trial counsel’s observations indicated that defendant was competent
• “obstinate” or “uncooperative” behavior does not show incompetency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).