PRESUMPTION OF COMPETENCE
You are instructed that [Name of Defendant] is presumed by the law to be competent, as that term is defined in these instructions. The burden of proof rests upon [Name of Defendant or, if applicable, the prosecution] to prove to your satisfaction by a preponderance of the evidence that [Name of Defendant] is incompetent.
When I say that a party has the burden of proving any proposition by a preponderance of the evidence, I mean that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which such party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true. The greater weight of the evidence does not mean the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact, but means what seems to you more convincing and more probably true.
If you find that the greater weight of the evidence proves that [Name of Defendant] is incompetent, you should so state in your verdict.
On the other hand, if you do not so find, then you should return a verdict finding [Name of Defendant] to be competent.
The Court of Criminal Appeals modified OUJI-CR 11-2 in Cooper v. State, 924 P.2d 751, 752 (Okl.Cr. 1996), to comply with the Mandate from the United States Supreme Court in Cooper v. Oklahoma, 116 S. Ct. 1373 (1996).
| Service provided by the IS department of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Email our webmaster with any of your comments or suggestions.