Mark Padgett, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee

Summary

The Court affirmed Appellant's convictions, holding that the trial court did not compel self-incrimination by requiring admissible evidence to support an extreme-emotional-disturbance instruction, and adequately investigated Appellant's dissatisfaction with counsel. It further held that Appellant neither requested hybrid counsel nor demonstrated a due-process violation from the absence of a competency hearing, and that the prosecutor's closing arguments did not constitute reversible misconduct. The Court clarified that statutory and constitutional competency-hearing rights are distinct and expressly overruled inconsistent prior approaches.