Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 681681.pdf

The court held that "[gjiven these competing interests, the trial court was correct in

choosing the course which would uphold the constitution and fulfill his obligation."

Smith, 88 Wn.2d at 643.

In Jones, the court reversed and held the trial court could not impose a plea of

not guilty by reason of insanity over the objection ofa competent defendant. Jones, 99
Wn.2d at 743-44. The court relied on Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct.

2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975), in concluding a defendant has the constitutional right

under the Sixth Amendment "to at least broadly control his own defense." Jones, 99

Wn.2d at 740. "The language and reasoning of Faretta necessarily imply a right to

personally control one's own defense.... In particular, Faretta embodies 'the conviction
that a defendant has the right to decide, within limits, the type of defense he wishes to

mount.'" Jones, 99 Wn.2d at 740 (quoting United States v. Laura, 607 F.2d 52, 56 (3d

Cir. 1979)).
             
No. 68168-1-1/9

The United States Supreme Court has deferred to the states as to whether a

defendant may assert an insanity defense. See, e.g., Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71,

112 S. Ct. 1780, 118 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1992). In Foucha. the Court states, in pertinent

part: