State v. Dort

Summary

The court affirmed the Appellate Court’s reversal of the defendant’s convictions because defense counsel made specific factual representations suggesting that the defendant could not rationally communicate with counsel or understand the amended charges, yet the trial court denied a competency examination without conducting an adequate inquiry. The court also held that the Appellate Court properly considered the issue because the parties had adequate notice and opportunity to address it. Because a retrospective determination of the defendant’s competency during the original trial was no longer reliable, vacating the convictions and remanding for a hearing on the need for a competency evaluation was appropriate.