Appellate justices probed whether a competency finding from 2018 remained reliable by the time of trial in Commonwealth v. Jerome Leatherwood.

Ethan Stiles, arguing for Leatherwood, told the court that the only expert opinion finding competency dated from 2018 and that intervening events (placements at recovery facilities, transfers, COVID-era disruptions, and changes in custodial conditions) made the finding stale. He emphasized the defendant’s uneven capacity to make decisions during stressful moments and urged that judges should not rely on outdated expert reports when assessing present competency.

The panel asked whether the disputed prong was factual understanding or the narrower ability to consult with counsel; Stiles focused on both but stressed the latter. He argued the trial judge may have abused discretion by crediting stale or equivocal expert evidence and relying on items the judge later struck from the record.

Molly Paris for the Commonwealth urged the court to affirm: Judge Sanders had held a competency hearing less than a month before trial, heard live testimony from an expert and considered extensive documentary evidence (hospital records, jail calls, interviews) that supported a finding of competency within the judge’s discretion.

The panel engaged the parties on the appropriate standard of review (abuse of discretion versus clear-error for factual findings) and asked whether additional experts or funding requests should have been granted below. The court took the matter under advisement.