What is Competency to Stand Trial?
In Ohio criminal law, competency refers to a defendant’s mental condition at the time of trial. A defendant is incompetent to stand trial if he does not understand the legal proceedings or is unable to assist in preparing his defense. In Dusky v. United States, the United States Supreme Court set forth a test for determining competency: “The test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him”.
The rationale behind the competency requirement is that it would be unfair to convict a person whose mental condition makes it impossible for them to understand the proceedings against them and/or assist with their defense. Convicting an incompetent person is a violation of the person’s right to due process of law, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
Competency is different than insanity. A person is found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity if, as the result of a severe mental disease or defect, the person did not know the wrongfulness of his acts. Insanity refers to the person’s mental condition at the time of the offense, while competency refers to the person’s mental condition at the time of the trial.
What Happens When the Issue of Competency is Raised?
The issue of the defendant’s competency may be raised by the defendant, the prosecution, or the judge. When the issue is raised, the judge may order one or more examinations of the defendant. The examiner(s) submit a report to the judge, and the judge holds a hearing. At the hearing, the defendant is presumed to be competent unless he proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, he is incompetent to stand trial.
If, after a hearing, the judge finds the defendant is competent, the trial proceeds. If the judge finds the defendant is incompetent, the judge must conclude whether there is a substantial probability the defendant will be restored to competency within one year. If there is, the judge may order that the defendant undergo treatment to restore competency. If there is not, the defendant is discharged from the criminal justice system but may be institutionalized through the probate court.
Why Did the Court in State v. Henry Conclude the Defendant was Competent?
The psychologists who evaluated the defendant submitted a report concluding the defendant was competent to stand trial, although the defendant did not fully participate in the evaluation. The defendant submitted extensive records of his mental impairments and requested a second evaluation.
The judge concluded the defendant’s records explained his mental impairments but did not address whether he was competent at the time of the hearing. The judge found the competency evaluation was thorough and detailed, so the judge did not order a second evaluation and found the defendant competent to stand trial. The appellate court found the judge’s finding was based on reliable and credible evidence and was therefore not an abuse of the judge’s discretion.
Is Competency an Issue Commonly Raised in OVI Cases?
Competency to stand trial is not often an issue raised in Ohio OVI cases. However, to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial, defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges should be alert for evidence suggesting the defendant may be incompetent.