[1] After Drope was indicted in 1969 for the rape of his wife, he filed a motion for a continuance requesting psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

Drope's subsequent motion to vacate the conviction and sentence, alleging, among other things, that his constitutional rights had been violated both by the court's failure to order a pretrial psychiatric evaluation and by the trial court's continuing the trial to its completion in his absence, was denied.

[2] The Missouri Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that neither the psychiatric evaluation attached to Drope's motion for a continuance nor his wife's testimony raised reasonable doubt as to his competence to proceed to trial.

It further held that Drope's suicide attempt failed to create a reasonable doubt as to his competence and that he had not demonstrated any inadequacy in the legal procedures protecting his rights.

In the current case, the Supreme Court clearly takes the position that in weighing whether any doubt exists as to the defendant's competency, the trial court must consider any evidence suggestive of mental illness, even one factor alone in some circumstances, may be sufficient to warrant an evaluation.