PEOPLE OF MI V RAYMOND EUGENE LLOYD JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 25, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
RAYMOND EUGENE LLOYD, JR., also known as
RUFUS BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 186131
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 94-002308 FC
ON REMAND
Before: Saad, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
SAAD, P.J. (dissenting in part and concurring in part).
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to remand for a competency hearing. I concur
in the majority’s resolution of the remaining issues.
A criminal defendant is presumed competent to stand trial absent a showing that the defendant
“is incapable because of his mental condition of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings
against him or of assisting in his defense in a rational manner.” MCL 330.2022(1); MSA
14.800(1020)(1). A defendant is entitled to a competency hearing if there are facts before the trial
court which raise a “bona fide doubt” as to the defendant’s capacity to stand trial. People v Whyte,
165 Mich App 409, 412; 418 NW2d 484 (1988). We will reverse a trial court’s decision with respect
to the existence of a “bona fide doubt” only where the trial court abused its discretion. People v
Harris, 185 Mich App 100, 102; 460 NW2d 239 (1990).
Here, defendant’s counsel stipulated before trial that defendant was competent to stand trial.
Defendant’s conduct at trial demonstrated that he was capable of assisting in his defense. He helped
select an expert witness, convinced his trial counsel to pursue a diminished capacity defense, and
personally wrote to the court to request a forensic examination. Because defendant initially conceded
his own competence before trial, and demonstrated his competence over the course of the trial, I cannot
agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a nunc pro tunc competency hearing. See, for
contrast, Harris, supra 103, where this Court concluded that the trial court erred in refusing to
reevaluate defendant’s competence where the trial court record was “replete with instances of bizarre
statements and behavior of defendant.” Accordingly, I would affirm defendant’s conviction.
-1
/s/ Henry William Saad
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
