Competence to Stand Trial
Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial (or, sometimes, Competence to Proceed) is likely the most common request by judicial systems of the psychiatric profession. As of 2016, roughly 60,000 pre-trial competence-to-stand-trial evaluations were performed in the United States each year. (Hoge SK. Competence to Stand Trial: An overview. Indian J. Psychiatry. 2016 Dec; 58 (Suppl 2):S187-S190)
Courts have held that a defendant to be competent at the time he/she is tried. Incompetence to Stand Trial is not a defense, but rather, an issue of whether a defendant can, at a given point in time, to those things necessary to ensure he/she receives a fair trial. Thus, no specific mental illness automatically causes incompetence. Rather, there must be a mental illness and an inability to perform certain tasks, which are defined somewhat differently in different jurisdictions.
If you believe that your client may have a mental illness and is (or was, some competence questions are raised after the fact) not able to understand the trial process, that he/she was confessing to a crime, what it meant when he/she waived certain rights, or is unable to work rationally with you, you may wish to consider requesting a competency evaluation.
In the United States, the process and standards for Evaluating Competence to Stand Trial are governed by various state and federal statutes, though there are significant similarities among different jurisdictions.
Historical Background
In medieval Britain, common law dictated that trial proceedings were terminated if a defendant failed to plead to the charges. As the government had various interests in trying those charged with crimes, officials developed means of attempting to force the defendant to enter a plea. Commonly, in a procedure called peine forte et dure, increasingly heavy rocks were placed on the body of the non-pleading defendant until he/she either entered a plea or died.
Over time, courts realized that some defendants who failed to enter a plea did so because they had a mental illness that rendered them unable to understand what was required of them, or otherwise participate in the process as necessary to ensure a fair trial, in other words: sometimes these defendants failed to enter a plea because they were incompetent, rather than refusing, to do so.
Beginning in the late 1700s, as courts grappled with how to make that determination, and what to do with defendants found Incompetent to Stand Trial, courts began to move toward a consensus regarding what constituted legal Incompetence to Stand Trial: The defendant needed to be possessed of sufficient reason to understand the charges against him/her and to participate in the trial in his/her own defense. Modern standards in the United States are generally similar.
Utah Courts
In Utah, the legal standard for Competence to Proceed is defined in Utah Code Annotated § 77-15-2 (1994), which reads:
a person is incompetent to proceed if he is suffering from a mental disorder or mental retardation resulting either in:
(1) his inability to have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him or of the punishment specified for the offense charged; or
(2) his inability to consult with his counsel and to participate in the proceedings against him with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
The court must determine whether the defendant, because of a mental disorder or mental retardation, is unable to understand the proceedings against him/her, unable to understand the punishment associated with being found guilty of his/her charges, unable to consult with his/her counsel, or unable to participate in the court proceedings in a rational way.
In Utah, the defendant, any person acting on his/her behalf, the prosecuting attorney, any person having custody or supervision over the defendant, and the court itself may raise the issue of a defendant’s incompetence. (Utah Code Annotated § 77-5-3 (1994) and § 77-5-4 (1994)) Once the issue is raised, a person is considered competent unless the court finds by the preponderance of the evidence that he is incompetent. (Utah Code Annotated § 77-15-5 (1994))
Federal Courts
In federal courts, the legal standard was stated by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. US, 362 U.S. 402. 1960, as, “the test must be whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of proceedings against him.” The Court was interpreting the recently passed 18 USC § 4241, which currently defines incompetence to stand trial as when the defendant “is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” (18 USC § 4241 (2009))
The defendant is considered competent unless the court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that he/she is incompetent (18 USC § 4241 (2009)).
Restoring Competence
After a defendant has been found incompetent by the court, he/she is generally committed to treatment to restore competency to stand trial and allow proceedings to resume. The details regarding how, where, and for how long a patient may be committed to treatment for competency restoration vary by jurisdiction.