Owens v. Texas (original by judge hervey)
Annotate this CaseAppellant Charles Owens was charged with felony murder after he led police on a high-speed chase during which he hit two vehicles and killed one of the drivers. Before trial, he filed a motion arguing that he was incompetent to stand trial. Appellant claimed that, due to traumatic brain injury caused by the crash, he suffered from amnesia and was unable to remember anything about the wreck. After a mental-health assessment, the defense expert concluded that, even if Appellant did suffer from amnesia (which the expert could not rule out), such condition did not render him incompetent to stand trial. At the competency trial, Appellant called the expert to the stand to testify about his conclusions, but before the expert could testify regarding the substance of his report, Appellant objected to his own witness and argued that the expert was not qualified to be appointed or testify as a competency expert. As grounds for his objection, Appellant contended that the witness did not meet a necessary continuing-education requirement. The judge allowed Appellant to argue that the expert was not statutorily allowed to be appointed but otherwise overruled his objection and allowed the expert to testify. Appellant was found competent and later convicted of felony murder. He appealed, and the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. It held that the trial court erred because the expert did not meet the statutory qualifications for a competency expert and that Appellant was harmed by that error. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed with that judgment, and reversed.
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.