## Facts

- Theodore Robinson was tried in Illinois for murdering his common-law wife; he admitted the shooting but asserted insanity at the time of the homicide and lack of competence to stand trial.
- The trial record included uncontradicted evidence of a long history of serious mental disturbance, including prior confinement as a psychopathic patient, killing his infant son, and an attempted suicide.
- Four defense witnesses testified Robinson was insane, describing irrational episodes and continuing mental instability extending to the time of trial.
- The trial court did not hold a competency hearing; instead, it accepted a stipulation that a doctor who examined Robinson months earlier would testify Robinson understood the charges and could cooperate with counsel.
- Robinson was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning no competency hearing had been requested and the evidence did not require one.
- In federal habeas proceedings, the court of appeals set aside the conviction and contemplated further proceedings; the State sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether due process is violated when a trial court fails to conduct a competency hearing on its own motion despite record evidence creating a bona fide doubt about the defendant’s competence to stand trial.
2. Whether due process permits a retrospective competency determination years after trial, or instead requires vacatur and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment setting aside the conviction, holding that the trial record raised sufficient doubt about Robinson’s competence to require a competency hearing.
- The Court held Robinson did not waive the right to a competency determination; an incompetent defendant cannot knowingly or intelligently waive that right.
- The Court rejected reliance on Robinson’s courtroom demeanor and stipulated medical testimony as substitutes for a competency hearing when the record contained substantial evidence of severe mental disorder.
- The Court ruled that, given the passage of more than six years, a meaningful retrospective competency hearing was not feasible; the remedy was to vacate the conviction and require a new trial within a reasonable time or release Robinson.

## Legal Principles

- Trying and convicting a legally incompetent defendant violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- When evidence before the trial court raises a bona fide doubt as to competence to stand trial, the court must conduct a competency hearing on its own motion.
- A defendant’s failure to request a competency hearing does not relieve the court of its constitutional duty to order one when the record raises substantial doubt.
- Competence cannot be established merely from courtroom demeanor or limited colloquy where the record contains substantial evidence of pronounced irrational behavior.
- Retrospective competency proceedings may be constitutionally insufficient when the time lapse and evidentiary limits prevent a reliable determination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that due process required a competency hearing because the trial record created a bona fide doubt about Robinson’s competence, that he could not waive this right, and that the proper remedy after a lengthy delay was to vacate the conviction and require a new trial or release.


Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966)