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.)
Does Los Angeles County have any special procedures for the evaluation of mental competency?
Yes.
Los Angeles County has Local Rules provide for a brief preliminary evaluation of a defendant’s mental incompetency by mental health expert by local court rule. (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.)
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].)
