## Facts

- Drope was indicted in Missouri for raping his wife; his case was severed from co-defendants.
- Before trial, Drope moved for a continuance to obtain further psychiatric examination and treatment, submitting a psychiatrist’s report recommending psychiatric treatment and describing disturbing behavior.
- The trial court denied the continuance and proceeded to trial.
- At trial, Drope’s wife testified consistently with the report about his strange behavior and stated he had tried to kill her shortly before trial.
- On the second day of trial, Drope shot himself in an apparent suicide attempt and was hospitalized.
- The trial court denied a mistrial, found Drope’s absence “voluntary,” and continued the trial in his absence; he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Missouri appellate courts affirmed, concluding the materials did not raise reasonable doubt about competence and that the suicide attempt did not, as a matter of law, require a competency hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether due process was violated by failing to order a competency evaluation when the record contained significant evidence suggesting incompetence, including a suicide attempt during trial.
2. Whether the trial could constitutionally continue in Drope’s absence based on a finding of “voluntary” absence without adequate inquiry into competence and waiver of the right to be present.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that the state courts failed to give proper weight to the evidence suggesting incompetence when considered cumulatively.
- The pretrial psychiatric report, corroborating testimony about abnormal behavior, and the suicide attempt created sufficient doubt to require further inquiry into competence.
- The Court found insufficient inquiry to support a determination that Drope validly waived his right to be present; proceeding without resolving competence concerns violated due process.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including a competency determination before any retrial.

## Legal Principles

- Due process forbids trying a defendant who is not competent to stand trial.
- Competence requires sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.
- The trial judge has a continuing duty to inquire into competence whenever evidence creates a reasonable doubt, including developments arising during trial.
- Courts must consider indicia of incompetence cumulatively; separating each fact and discounting it in isolation can violate due process.
- A finding of voluntary absence or waiver of the right to be present requires an adequate inquiry; where competence is in doubt, waiver cannot be assumed.

## Conclusion

The Court held that substantial, accumulating evidence of mental disturbance—culminating in a midtrial suicide attempt—required suspension of proceedings and a competency inquiry, and that the failure to conduct such inquiry also undermined any finding that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present.


Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975)