Competency Flashcards
Mental Competency Procedures Under Penal Code section 1368
What is the general rule on competency?
A person may not be tried while mentally incompetent. (Pen. Code, § 1367.)
What is the standard for determining competency?
The defendant must:
1. Have the ability to grasp the nature of the proceedings, which necessarily includes the capacity to have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings; and
2. Have sufficient present ability to consult with and assist counsel in a rational manner in preparing a defense.
(Pen. Code, § 1367 subd. (a).)
How much evidence must a defense counsel present of incompetency?
A defendant is entitled to a Penal Code section 1368 hearing only if defense counsel provides substantial evidence of present mental incompetence. (People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 737-738.)
Can a defense counsel merely give their opinion that the defendant is competent?
No.
Counsel’s opinion must include a statement of specific supporting reasons to constitute substantial evidence of incompetence. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 4.130(b)(2).)
Is a judge required to order a competence hearing based merely on counsel’s perception that the defendant may be incompetent?
No.
(People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 737-738.)
What should a court do if there is a reasonable possibility of incompetence, even if it does not rise to the level of substantial evidence?
The court “must” order a mental health examination before deciding there is no need for a Penal Code section 1368 hearing. (Benchguide – Competence to Stand Trial at § 63.9; see, e.g., People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 462.) This is done in County Jail. See LASC Local Rule 4.136.
What will satisfy the substantial evidence test for determining mental competency?
The substantial evidence test is satisfied if a qualified mental health expert who has had sufficient opportunity to examine the defendant states under oath with particularity that, in the expert’s professional opinion, due to mental illness, the defendant is incapable of understanding the purpose or nature of the criminal proceedings or assisting in the defense or cooperating with counsel. (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 525.)
Does Los Angeles County have any special procedures for the evaluation of mental competency?
Yes.
Los Angeles County has Local Rules which provide for a brief preliminary evaluation of a defendant’s competency by a forensic psychologist. (LASC Local Rule 4.136.)
What does LASC Local Rule 4.136 provide?
California Rule of Court 4.130(d) provides that a detailed competency inquiry must be conducted after a declaration of a doubt.
However, subdivision (a)(3) allows a less detailed preliminary report if the local rules provide for one. LASC Local Rule 4.136 is LA’s preliminary report procedure.
It provides for a brief preliminary evaluation of the defendant’s competence by a forensic psychiatrist at the Mental Health Courthouse.
When should a brief preliminary evaluation of the defendant’s competence in jail be ordered?
When there isn’t substantial evidence of incompetence, because all we’ve heard is the defense lawyer’s opinion, but there is a reasonable possibility of incompetency, the jail evaluation should be used. (See LASC Local Rule 4.136.)
Should criminal proceedings be suspended when a preliminary evaluation in jail is conducted pursuant to LASC Local Rule 4.136?
No. Since there is no substantial evidence to support a competency hearing, it seems like proceedings do not need to be suspended.
“Once the court has ordered a competency hearing, the criminal proceedings must be suspended until a trial on the defendant’s competency has been concluded and the defendant is found mentally competent or has competency restored under Penal Code section 1372.” (Benchguide at § 63:15, citing Pen. Code, § 1368(c); Cal. Rules of Ct. 4.130(c)(1); People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219, 231.)
Are voluntary barriers to communication with counsel or doctor substantial evidence of doubt about defendant’s mental competence?
No.
(People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 878-879.)
Are defendant’s bizarre actions or statements substantial evidence of doubt about defendant’s mental competence?
No.
(People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 742; People v. Cooks (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 224, 324 [bizarre answers to questions on cross-examination showed hostility to prosecution and court but not incompetence to testify].)
