The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio has overturned the conviction of Jessica M. Richardson, finding that the trial court committed a structural error by proceeding to trial despite overwhelming evidence that Richardson was not mentally competent to assist in her own defense. The appellate court ruled that trying an incompetent defendant violates fundamental due process rights.
Richardson was convicted in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on one count of theft and one count of forgery, both third-degree felonies, stemming from allegations that she defrauded an elderly romantic partner, Paul Kerschensteiner, who suffered from dementia. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay over $28,000 in restitution.
The Path to Incompetency Finding
The case took a sharp turn early in the proceedings. In August 2022, the trial court ordered a competency evaluation for Richardson. A psychologist, Dr. Terrance Kukor, reported that Richardson was unable to assist her counsel and was therefore not competent to stand trial.
Following this initial finding, the trial court determined there was a “substantial probability” Richardson could be restored to competency and ordered a six-month treatment period.
However, when a follow-up hearing was held in August 2023, the evidence presented suggested the restoration efforts had failed. Dr. Dennis Eshbaugh, who evaluated Richardson after her outpatient treatment, testified that while she understood the nature of the proceedings, her severe, active mental illness—specifically, “paranoid delusions”—prevented her from assisting her attorney.
Dr. Eshbaugh detailed Richardson’s belief system, which included delusions that the alleged victim, Mr. Kerschensteiner, had been kidnapped by his children and was being subjected to electroshock treatments to turn him against her. Crucially, Dr. Eshbaugh concluded that Richardson “would only listen to advice that was consistent with the delusional material that she presented,” rendering her incapable of developing a rational legal defense. He stated that competency could not be restored within the statutory time limit.
Trial Court Relied on Unqualified Testimony
Despite the expert testimony indicating ongoing incompetence, the trial court ultimately found Richardson competent to stand trial in September 2023, leading to her trial and conviction in December 2023.
The appellate court scrutinized the trial court’s reasoning for this finding. The trial judge had relied heavily on the testimony of two witnesses called by Richardson: Gina Burdett, a licensed professional clinical counselor, and Traci Hairston, an employment specialist.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals found this reliance misplaced. Neither Burdett nor Hairston had reviewed the relevant Ohio statute (R.C. 2945.38) governing competency to stand trial. Burdett defined incompetence as an inability to handle “daily functioning,” a standard far removed from the legal requirement of being able to assist in one’s defense.
The appeals court noted that only the two forensic psychologists, Dr. Kukor and Dr. Eshbaugh, were familiar with the legal standard for competency. Given that both experts concluded Richardson could not assist her defense due to delusions, the appellate court determined there was no reliable, credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding of competency.
Structural Error and Constitutional Violation
The appellate court focused its decision on the concept of structural error. Structural errors, the opinion explains, are fundamental constitutional violations that taint the entire trial framework, making it impossible to reliably determine guilt or innocence. Trying an incompetent defendant falls squarely into this category.
The opinion dismissed arguments made during the competency hearing where the trial court pressed defense counsel on whether they felt they could adequately represent Richardson. The appellate court found this line of questioning irrelevant.
“Whether legal counsel feels they can represent a defendant is inapposite to the determination of competency,” the opinion stated. Similarly, Richardson’s personal desire to have “her day in court” could not substitute for the legal requirement that she possess a rational understanding of the proceedings and the ability to aid her counsel.
Because the trial court abused its discretion by finding Richardson competent based on unreliable testimony, the subsequent trial was deemed constitutionally infirm.
Case Remanded for Dismissal
The appellate court reversed the judgment and vacated the conviction. Furthermore, because Richardson’s six-month restoration period had expired by the time the trial commenced, the court instructed the trial court to follow Ohio Revised Code R.C. 2945.38(H)(4). This statute mandates that if competency cannot be restored within the statutory period, the court must dismiss the indictment unless the prosecutor files for civil commitment.
As the core issue of competency was decided in Richardson’s favor, the court deemed her other assignments of error—concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and the verdict being against the manifest weight of the evidence—moot.