LEGAL AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL STATUTES AND PROCEDURES

• NCJ Number: 52839
• Journal: Criminology Volume: 16 Issue: 3 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1978) Pages: 420-429
• Author(s): R ROESCH; S L GOLDING
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 10 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning and Architecture
• Corporate Author: Sage Publications, Inc; American Soc of Criminology
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

USING RESULTS FROM A SURVEY OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDGES AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, THE VIEWS OF THE LEGAL COMMUNITY REGARDING COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL STATUTES AND PROCEDURES ARE ANALYZED.

Abstract

ALL 163 DISTRICT AND SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES IN NORTH CAROLINA WERE MAILED A QUESTIONNAIRE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING THEIR VIEWS ON THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL. THE 55 JUDGES RESPONDING REPRESENTED A RETURN RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 37 PERCENT. THE 111 DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WHO REQUESTED COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS FOR CLIENTS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 25, 1976, AND APRIL 30, 1976, WERE SURVEYED BY TELEPHONE. THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE OF PARTICULAR INTEREST: THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF COMPETENCY IS RAISED IN THE COURTS, HOW JUDGES DECIDE TO GRANT COMPETENCY MOTIONS, ATTORNEY MOTIVATIONS FOR REQUESTING AN EVALUATION, HOW THE EVALUATION REPORT IS USED BY THE COURT, AND HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF DEFENDANTS FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL. WHILE MANY JUDGES BELIEVED THAT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISUSED THE COMPETENCY PROCEDURES, THE JUDGES UNIFORMLY GRANTED THE MOTIONS. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS INDICATED REASONS FOR REQUESTING COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS THAT WERE FREQUENTLY UNRELATED TO CONCERNS ABOUT COMPETENCY. HEARINGS TO DETERMINE COMPETENCY WERE FREQUENTLY NOT HELD. THE JUDGES APPEARED OFTEN TO HAVE RELINQUISHED THEIR DECISIONMAKING RESPONSIBILITY TO MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. IF A DEFENDANT WAS FOUND TO BE INCOMPETENT, MOST JUDGES BELIEVED THAT INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION SHOULD BE AUTOMATIC REGARDLESS OF STATE STATUTES LIMITING CIVIL COMMITMENT TO A FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS. THE AUTHORS ARGUE THAT THE ISSUES CONSIDERED DEMAND FURTHER ATTENTION AND RESOLUTION IF COMPETENCY PROCEDURES ARE TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR INTENDED GOAL WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS. RESPONSES TO PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ARE INDICATED. CITED CASES AND REFERENCES ARE LISTED. (RCB)