Georgia Competency To Stand Trial Evaluations

Front 1

Dusky v U.S. 1960

Back 1

Dusky v U.S. 1960 The US Supreme Court held, in a very brief opinion, that the “test must be whether [the defendant] 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 Dusky test sets the constitutional minimum for competency to stand trial.

Front 2

Pate v. Robinson 1966

Back 2

Pate v. Robinson 1966 Robinson’s attorney did not specifically demand a hearing on his competency to stand trial, he had raised the issue and there was evidence introduced that was sufficient to entitle him to such a hearing. The Supreme Court said that the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on its own motion (as already required by Illinois law) deprived Robinson

Front 3

Wilson v. U.S 1968

Back 3

Wilson v. U.S 1968 Amnesia for the time of the crime did not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial.

Front 4

Jackson v. Indiana 1972

Back 4

Jackson v. Indiana 1972 Jackson was found incompetent to stand trial and it was established that there was little likelihood that he would improve. He was committed to a hospital “until sane.” The US Supreme Court held that Jackson’s right to equal protection was violated because he was subjected to a more lenient commitment standard and a more stringent release standard than those applicable to persons not charged with criminal offenses. The Court also held that Indiana’s indefinite commitment of a criminal defendant solely on account of his incompetency to stand trial violated due process and they said “such a defendant cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain competency in the foreseeable future.” If it is determined the defendant will not attain competency, he either must be civilly committed or released.

Front 5

Drope v Missouri 1975

Back 5

Drope v Missouri 1975 Drope had a history of “instability” and was being tried for raping his wife when, while out on bond during the trial, he attempted suicide by shooting himself. The US Supreme Court concluded that ‘the information available prior to trial, the testimony of the his wife at trial, and the information concerning his suicide attempt created sufficient doubt of his incompetence to stand trial to require further inquiry on the question. The court said that the issue of a defendant’s competency to stand trial may be raised at any time and “the evidence of a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required, but that even one of these factors standing alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient.”

Front 6

Estelle v. Smith 1981

Back 6

Estelle v. Smith 1981 Because Smith was not informed of his right to remain silent and was not told that statements he made in a pretrial competency examination could be used against him in later stages of trial, these statements could not be used by the prosecution in the capital sentencing phase. Such use violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination

Front 7

Godinez v. Moran 1993

Back 7

Godinez v. Moran 1993 The competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving the right to counsel is higher than the competency standard for standing trial was questioned. In Godinez, the Court held that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, he was competent to make all the choices pertinent to the trial, including waiving the privilege against self-incrimination by taking the witness stand, waiving trial by jury, waiving the right to confront accusers, waiving the right to an attorney by representing himself, and waiving the right to a trial by pleading guilty. At the same time, the court also said that the defendant’s waiver of rights must be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”

Front 8

Cooper v. Oklahoma 1996

Back 8

Cooper v. Oklahoma 1996 The highest burden of proof that the state could require was that the defendant prove his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.

Front 9

Long v. State 1868

Back 9

Long v. State 1868 The Georgia Supreme Court did not see the necessity for trial by a special jury in the case of insanity at the time of the crime (general plea) because it deals with intent and could be dealt with in the criminal trial. Subsequently, the legislature of 1895 deleted the Georgia code section requiring a special trial for a general plea of insanity. The initial part of the code section defining a general plea of insanity was then combined with the code section defining competency to stand trial. This accounts for why, in Georgia, competency to stand trial is referred to as a “special plea of insanity” and is in the criminal procedures part of the Georgia Code.

Front 10

What did the Georgia Legislature of 1977 do in relation to mental health issues?

Back 10

It delineated the concepts of “mental responsibility” and “mental competency,” and attempted to replace “special plea of insanity” with “plea of mental incompetency to stand trial.” Georgia Supreme Court cases (e.g., Crawford, Echols) then echoed this distinction between mental responsibility (legal insanity) and mental competency (competency to stand trial.) Although these terms have been codified, the Georgia courts and legislators often continue to indiscriminately use the word “insanity” to convey either of two meanings: (1) any type or degree of mental defect or disease, or (2) such a degree of mental defect or disease as to entail legal consequences (such as avoidance of a contract or will, the need for a guardian, civil commitment to a hospital, or denial of criminal responsibility for an illegal act.

Front 11

Brown v. State 1960

Back 11

Brown v. State 1960 The criteria for determining competency to stand trial in Georgia was handed down by the Georgia Supreme Court in Brown v. State (1960) two months before Dusky ruling. It clarifies that there is a distinction between the condition of insanity that excuses a crime and the insanity that arrests trial. It notes that the Georgia law which guarantees that one charged with a crime shall not be tried while in a condition of insanity (incompetency) also secures the individual’s right to have the question of his mental condition inquired into before being required to plead to the indictment. This stems from the common-law rule that a defendant must be capable of making a rational defense.
“whether the defendant is mentally competent at the time of the trial of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him and rightly comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and is capable of rendering his attorneys such assistance as a proper defense to the indictment preferred against him demands.”

Front 12

Bacon v. State 1966

Back 12

Bacon v. State 1966 The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that since the special jury trial on the issue of competency is a civil proceeding, the defendant may be called for cross-examination but may not be asked questions relating to guilt or innocence.

Front 13

Lingo v. State 1968

Back 13

Lingo v. State 1968 The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of the defendant’s right to counsel for the trial court to order psychiatric examination of the defendant before he had appointed counsel. The Court held that the trial court had the right to investigate the question of the competency of the defendant. The Court similarly held that it was not a violation of constitutional rights to allow psychiatric testimony based on the examination which occurred before an attorney was appointed. The Court also ruled that both expert and non-expert witnesses can give opinions on issues of competency, stating, ”any witness may swear his opinion or belief, giving his reasons therefore,” whereas an expert witness “may base his opinion on any hypothetical statement of facts, and may state his opinion without giving any reason.”

Front 14

Crawford v. State 1977

Back 14

Crawford v. State 1977 GA Supreme Court holds that whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crime charged is not relevant at the trial of a special plea of insanity and neither witnesses nor the defendant can be questioned on this issued.

Front 15

Martin v. State 1978

Back 15

Martin v. State 1978 GA Court of Appeals holds that a trial court cannot accept a plea of guilty when the issue of competence is still pending.

Front 16

Banks v. State 1980

Back 16

Banks v. State 1980 GA Supreme Court states that the question in competency to stand trial is not whether the defendant will assist in his defense but whether the defendant is capable of doing so. Also, the inability to remember is not incompetency.

Front 17

Smalls v. State 1980

Back 17

Smalls v. State 1980 GA Court of Appeals holds that the issue of mental competency to stand trial is the same whether raised before, during or subsequent to the trial.

Front 18

Aldridge v. State 1981

Back 18

Aldridge v. State 1981 GA Supreme Court holds that amnesia does not per say constitute incompetency to stand trial citing US v. Swanson 1978. They ruled the trial judge should consider the following points in each case 1) the defendant’s present ability to testify on matters other than the event he cannot remember 2) the present or absence of other psychological conditions that would hinder his present ability to assist counsel 3) the ability of defense and prosecution to reconstruct events without the defendant’s testimony 4) strength of the prosecution’s case against the defendant 5) access to the prosecution files in helping defendant prepare his defense.

Front 19

US v. Swanson 1978

Back 19

US v. Swanson 1978 US Supreme Court opined recognizing that the fundamental fairness of trying an amnesiac defendant may vary depending on the crime and the circumstances surrounding the claimed loss of memory. We hold that propriety of trying an amnesiac defendant is a question to be determined according to the circumstances of each individual case.

Front 20

Alanson v. State 1981

Back 20

Alanson v. State 1981 GA Supreme Court reiterates (Brown) a defendant must be aware of the charge, be aware of its consequences, and be able to communicate with his lawyer.

Front 21

Henderson v. State 1981

Back 21

Henderson v. State 1981 GA Court of Appeals ruled that lay witnesses may give testimony at the competency hearing because this is a civil proceeding and testimony is not offered as evidence of criminal misconduct but relates to mental alertness and clarity. Also, the court held that the requirement that the defendant be given a psychiatric evaluation may be satisfied by a doctor qualified to give such an opinion who may not be a board certified psychiatrist.

Front 22

Baker v. State 1982

Back 22

Baker v. State 1982 GA Supreme Court holds that the procedural due process requirements of Pate & Drope were not met and the trial court failed to follow GA law when it refused to inquire into the defendant’s competency because it contended the defense had not filed the special plea in a timely manner (filed the morning of the trail). The case was remanded for a post conviction competency hearing. The court held that in this retrospective procedure, the burden would first be on the state to prove there is sufficient evidence to make a meaning determination of competency at the time of the trial and if the burden is not met, the defendant must have a new trial. If an effective hearing on competency is possible, the burden is on the defendant to prove incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence.

Front 23

Godfrey v. Francis 1983

Back 23

Godfrey v. Francis 1983 GA Supreme Court ruled there is no constitutional right to have the defense attorney present at a competency examination.

Front 24

Ingram v. State 1984

Back 24

Ingram v. State 1984 GA Supreme Court ruled that if the defense introduces psychiatric testimony, this constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s 5th amendment privilege in the same way that electing to testify at a trial would. Any burden on the defense is then justified by the State’s difficulty in responding to such testimony without its own psychiatric examination of the accused and the need to prevent fraudulent mental defenses. The use of information from a compelled psychiatric examination during the sentencing phase by the State’s experts in rebuttal of the defense’s expert testimony is proper.

Front 25

Almond v. State 1986

Back 25

Almond v. State 1986 GA Court of Appeals found that it is inappropriate for the State to call a defendant’s counsel as a witness at a competency trial for the purpose of extracting facts and counsel’s opinion as to his client’s competency which is gained from his participation in the attorney-client relationship with the defendant. The court also viewed as fundamentally unfair and a denial of due process any procedure which would deprive a possibly incompetent defendant of the full assistance of counsel.

Front 26

Newman v. State 1988

Back 26

Newman v. State 1988 GA Supreme Court held that being found IST raises a presumption of incompetency but a hospital’s return of a defendant to the court with the opinion of current competency restores the presumption of competency.

Front 27

DHR v. Drust 1994

Back 27

DHR v. Drust 1994 GA Supreme Court ruled that DHR must accept IST patients for teatment even if treatment modalities aren’t readily available.

Front 28

DHR v. Long 1996

Back 28

DHR v. Long 1996 GA Supreme Court held that the Superior Court has the authority to civilly commit a pretrial detainee who is not IST, as long as the criteria and procedures set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 37 were used. (Does not have to be Probate Court)

Front 29

What legal issues have NOT yet been decided through legal precedence in Georgia?

Back 29

1) How competent is competent?
2) How much does a defendant need to be able to assist his attorney?
3) Can a defendant be medicated against his will to restore competence if doing so is not otherwise in his medical interest? (Riggins v. NV, 1992, US Supreme Court, in a decision overturning a conviction in which a defendant was force medicated at trial, explicitly denied that their decision addressed whether a defendant could be medicated solely for the purpose of restoring competency.)

Front 30

What are the major steps of a forensic evaluation for competency to stand trial?

Back 30

1) Beginning the case and assembling the forensic file.
2) Prepare for the interview.
3) Interview of the defendant.
4) Interviews of family members or witnesses.
5) Formulate the case and consult with other forensic professionals if needed.
6) Write the report.
7) Contact the Courts.

Front 31

What documents and information are helpful in assembling the forensic file prior to the competency to stand trial interview?

Back 31

1) Court order
2) Police report
3) Other investigative information
4) Information, either written or oral, regarding particular concerns of the judge requesting evaluation.
5) Past mental health/medical records

Front 32

What additional information is good to review in preparing for the competency to stand trial interview?

Back 32

1) Jail mental health records.
2) Discussions with jail personnel about defendant’s behavior in jail.

Front 33

What are 7 issues that must be addressed in the competency to stand trial interview?

Back 33

1) Review notification & obtain releases
2) Discuss limits of confidentially and where report will be sent
3) General evaluation of history and mental status
4) Evaluation of specific issues pertaining to competency
5) Semi-structured interviews
6) Malingering
7) Special issues

Front 34

What general principals should be followed when writing any forensic report?

Back 34

1) The report should specify the forensic question addressed.
2) The report should document the sources of information.
3) The report should document the details of the advisory notice given to the defendant.
4) Information and observations utilized in formulating the opinions should be provided in the report; exact quotations of the defendant are helpful.
5) The reasoning from the data to the opinion should be given, not just the opinion itself.

Front 35

In GA what is the maximum time period to determine if there is a substantial likelihood that an incompetent defendant will become competent in the foreseeable future and how is this communicated to the Court?

Back 35

90 days; it is communicated to the Court in the “90 Day Report.”

Front 36

In GA what constitutes the foreseeable future in relation to the 90 day report?

Back 36

9 months

Front 37

What law and policy outline the procedures for handling IST defendants in GA?

Back 37

O.C.G.A. 17-7-130 and the Division’s Policy 2.104, entitled “Treatment and release of persons committed to hospitals by virtue of a finding of incompetence to stand trial”

Front 38

During the 90 day period, if an IST defendant is found competent to stand trial, what is the disposition of that defendant?

Back 38

The defendant is discharged back to the jail, and a report is sent to the Court summarizing the hospitalization & the re-evaluation of competency.

Front 39

If an IST defendant remains incompetent at the end of the 90 day period, but an opinion has been issued that they could be restored to competency in the foreseeable future, what is the disposition of the defendant?

Back 39

If the defendant is determined to be potentially restorable, then the defendant may be retained in the hospital for up to an additional 9 months without the need for further commitment proceeding.

Front 40

Can an incompetent defendant thought to be non-restorable at the end of the 90 day period continue to be confined? Why or why not?

Back 40

No, they must be civilly committed, meeting the criteria defined in O.C.G.A. 37-3-1 or 37-4-1 and the opinion regarding commitability is included in a report to the Court or they must be released.

Front 41

What happens to the patient and what is required of an examiner when he finds that an IST defendant is not restorable but also does not meet the impatient commitment criteria?

Back 41

The IST defendant is returned to jail and the examiner provides recommendations regarding any needed outpatient treatment that the Court would use to set the conditions of bond for the IST defendant when released from custody.

Front 42

What is the McGarry Criteria

Back 42

One of many conceptual models regarding the interview process when conducting a competency evaluation.

Front 43

What are the 13 items outlined in the McGarry Criteria for Competency to Stand Trial?

Back 43

1. Appraisal of available legal defenses
2. Unmanageable behavior
3. Quality of relating to attorney
4. Planning of legal strategy, including plea bargaining
5. Appraisal of court roles e.g. prosecuting attorney, judge, Defendant, witness, etc.
6. Understanding of court procedures
7. Appreciation of charges
8. Appreciation and range of possible penalties
9. Appraisal of likely outcome
10. Capacity to disclose to attorney available pertinent facts surrounding the offense, including the defendant’s movements, timing, mental state, actions at time of offense.
11. Capacity to realistically challenge prosecution witnesses
12. Capacity to testify relevantly
13. Self-defeating v. self-serving motivation (legal sense)

Front 44

Does an examiner need to obtain a patient’s consent prior to performing a competency evaluation? Why or why not?

Back 44

No. Consent is not legally required, however, notice of the nature of the interview is legally and ethically required.

Front 45

In providing notice to a client when conducting a competency evaluation why is it important to discuss your role as a psychologist?

Back 45

The client must understand that, although as a psychologist you do provide treatment within the hospital wherein confidences may be held, your role in this case is as an impartial instrument of the court and there is no confidentiality.

Front 46

When a client signs the notice form prior to a competency evaluation what are they documenting?

Back 46

Only that notice was given and they received and understood this information.

Front 47

When a patient refuses to sign a notice form prior to conducting a competency interview, what steps should a psychologist take?

Back 47

Make a note that the evaluee was advised of rights and refused to sign the form then continue with the evaluation.

Front 48

What does the Notice Of Information Disclosure To Courts For Pretrial Evaluation Clients cover when conducting a competency evaluation?

Back 48

1. The purpose of the report
2. To whom the report will be sent
3. The lack of confidentiality
4. That courtroom testimony based on evaluation may occur
5. Right not to answer any questions
6. Right to consult with an attorney about participation
7. Information from evaluation may be used in deciding sentence if client found guilty
8. Questions

Front 49

As a legal document is it permissible for the evaluator to write notes on the Notice of Information Disclosure to Courts For Pretrial Evaluation Clients regarding the client’s responses to items on the form?

Back 49

Yes, in fact they are encouraged to do so as it aids in documenting a defendant’s level of understanding.

Front 50

Some evaluators obtain consents to view medical and mental health records about the time they provide notice. True or False

Back 50

True. Whether a release is required to obtain jail mental health records varies from county to county.

Front 51

Generally, when a patient arrives in a forensic hospital they will receive a competency evaluation. When a new patient arrives can you routinely go ahead and get started on this process?

Back 51

No. Evaluators only carry out cases when they are in possession of a valid court order signed by a judge from a state or superior court.

Front 52

Most orders request an evaluation for competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, and/or assistance in disposition. What is being requested when Assistance in Disposition is requested?

Back 52

Assistance in Disposition refers only to general treatment recommendations rather than recommendations regarding court or legal disposition.

Front 53

An order for a competency exam should include location of the defendant, a copy of the police report, and an indictment or accusation. If this information is not sent with the order what should the examiner do?

Back 53

Immediately call the prosecutor or defense attorney to obtain this information.

Front 54

How does an evaluation for criminal responsibility differ from a competency evaluation in terms of consent and counsel?

Back 54

It is important for the examiner to ensure the defendant has a defense attorney appointed, the attorney is aware that the evaluation is taking place, and at least the verbal consent of the defendant is obtained. This is important because in discussing his behavior at the time of the crime, the defendant is waiving his right not to incriminate himself.

Front 55

Does an evaluation of competency report need to have a diagnosis?

Back 55

Technically no. Generally, however, if a psychiatric diagnosis is clear and there is a history of mental illness, the evaluator should include the diagnosis. On the other hand, if there is no clear diagnosis, the examiner does not need to do a diagnostic work-up to obtain one.

Front 56

The basic criteria for competency to stand trial in Georgia were outlined where?

Back 56

Brown v. State (1960)

Front 57

What are the three prongs to assess in a competency evaluation in the state of Georgia?

Back 57

1. Understanding the nature and object of proceedings
2. Comprehending his own condition in reference to proceedings
3. Ability to assist attorney in mounting a defense

Front 58

How are the first two prongs of assessment in a competency examination similar?

Back 58

The basic areas of inquiry for these two prongs relate to whether or not the defendant understands what he is charged with, how the court system works, what his or her options and responsibilities are, as well as an appreciation that he or she is the defendant, and that the consequences of the proceedings will happen to him.

Front 59

To what degree does the defendant need to understand the charges against him?

Back 59

It is not necessary for the defendant to know the precise legal terminology for his charge. They do not need to say, for example, “aggravated assault,” rather, “The police say I shot someone,” is sufficient.

Front 60

When an individual cannot seem to answer questions about charges appropriately in jail but has no clear history of at least moderate mental retardation or severe psychosis what should the evaluator rule out?

Back 60

Malingering

Front 61

To what extent should a defendant understand the possible penalties he is facing if convicted?

Back 61

It is not necessary for the defendant to know the exact sentence or even be able to provide a range of years, but it is more important that the defendant understands the general severity of the penalties that could be imposed as well as a realistic appraisal of the possible outcomes.

Front 62

Plea bargaining is one of the most conceptually complicated tasks a defendant faces. It requires not only understanding the nature of the plea bargain offer, but also weighing the likelihood of conviction if the case proceeds to trial. Legal standards give little guidance in assessing this area. What, however, is an essential concept for the evaluator to determine that a defendant is able to understand?

Back 62

The defendant needs to know he is waiving his right against self-incrimination if he accepts a plea bargain.

Front 63

If a client states he hates his attorney and will not see his counsel when they visit would they be considered incompetent because they cannot assist their attorney?

Back 63

Not necessarily. Dissatisfaction with, or a refusal to talk with, one’s attorney does not equate with an inability to assist one's attorney. More information would need to be gathered.

Front 64

Explain why amnesia for the time an offense was committed does not directly equate to incompetence to stand trial.

Back 64

As a general matter, amnesia will not necessarily make a defendant incompetent to stand trial; the central issue is whether the defendant is able to have a fair trial despite his amnesia. (See Wilson v. US, 1968 and Aldridge v. State, 1981).

Front 65

What is the essential element, impacting competency evaluations, subsequent to Godinez v. Moran (1993)?

Back 65

If a defendant is competent to stand trial, he is competent to make all decisions pertinent to a trial.

Front 66

Upon who is the burden of proof in a competency case and what is the level of such burden?

Back 66

The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove incompetency by a preponderance of evidence.

Front 67

When a defendant makes a plea for incompetency a special jury is impaneled for the competency trial. Why does the court take this action?

Back 67

This process allows for issues and information related to competency to be separated from the criminal trial itself.

Front 68

Name two tests used to determine a client’s level of malingering.

Back 68

1. Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms
2. Test of Memory Malingering

Front 69

A number of structured interviews have been developed for the assessment of competence to stand trial. Name the current state of the art tool in the field.

Back 69

The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA, Poythress et al., 1999)

Front 70

A criticism of structured interviews in competency evaluations is that defendants who may, in fact, be competent can perform poorly on such instruments due to issues such as difficulty handling abstract, hypothetical situations, etc. What caution should a psychologist take from such concern?

Back 70

Structured instruments should be considered one source of data and their cut-off scores should not be the sole basis for an opinion regarding competency to stand trial.

Front 71

Psychological testing may be useful in some cases, but it generally not needed to answer relevant legal questions. In what circumstances would an evaluator employ testing?

Back 71

Cases which involve:
1. Mental retardation
2. Organic brain damage
3. Juvenile immaturity
4. Death penalty
5. Malingering
6. Psychotic disorders.

Front 72

Sometimes an attorney requests to be present during a competency evaluation although there is case law supporting their ban from the procedure there are also guidelines for such allowances. What are these guidelines?

Back 72

(1) That the attorney sits out of sight (generally behind) the defendant to prevent cuing
(2) The attorney does not participate verbally in the interview
(3) That if the attorney does participate, this will be grounds for terminating the interview and informing the court that the attorney interfered with the interview process

Front 73

What would one reason be that an evaluator might want an attorney present during a competency evaluation and why might the attorney object?

Back 73

The presence of the attorney can be a benefit in the competency evaluation because it gives the evaluator the opportunity to directly assess the client-attorney interaction. Some attorneys may not want this interaction evaluated directly and claim attorney-client privilege. One way to meet both needs is for the attorney to meet privately with the defendant, followed by a short session with the evaluator present.

Front 74

How do the competency evaluations of IST defendants, who have been civilly committed, differ from those of pretrial defendants?

Back 74

The questions and general methods for an IST defendant who has been civilly committed, follow the same general principles as for pretrial defendants. The evaluator generally has considerable observation data now available, however, to assess functioning and issues of malingering. The evaluator also now assesses the defendant’s response to treatment and the likelihood that competence can be restored.

Front 75

Is there a standard indicating how long a competency evaluation report be?

Back 75

No, however, the report should be succinct, focused, and serve as a blueprint for future courtroom testimony by evaluator.

Front 76

What is the primary goal of the competency evaluation report?

Back 76

To express the examiner’s opinion as clearly as possible and provide the reasoning that led to the opinion.

Front 77

Whose job is it to determine competence?

Back 77

It is the court’s job to decide where the threshold for competency lies, and in close cases, the court may see the issue differently from the evaluator.

Front 78

How does a forensic hospital’s role differ when a patient has been released when they are IST versus when they are NGRI?

Back 78

The hospital maintains no further involvement in a case once a person is discharged IST with conditions of bond, whereas, it retains a monitoring function, and the patient will return to a secure unit if problems with conditional release arise, with an NGRI individual.

Front 79

In Georgia, individuals who are ___ years old at the time of the commission of a criminal act are automatically considered adults, regardless of the criminal offense.

Back 79

17

Front 80

What is a 440 case?

Back 80

It refers to Senate Bill 440, the “School Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform Act”, which was passed into law in 1994 and specified that juveniles charged with certain crimes are to be tried as adults.

Front 81

What does O.C.G.A. 15-11-28 allow?

Back 81

The prosecutor or court itself, may elect, for extraordinary cause, to transfer any case involving a child down to the juvenile court, thereby, circumventing Senate Bill 440.

Front 82

The superior court was given exclusive jurisdiction over the trial of any child, age __ or older, who is alleged to have committed ___.

Back 82

13, murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, or armed robbery if committed with a firearm.

Front 83

The law considers a subject of a 440 case as what?

Back 83

An adult

Front 84

The evaluation of adolescents in an adult court system is, by nature, quite difficult and is best achieved when consultation brings together both forensic and developmental expertise. How is this best achieved?

Back 84

A team approach in conducting evaluations.

Front 85

What does DBHDD and DHR stand for?

Back 85

Department of Behaviral Health and Developmental Disabilities

Department of Human Resources

Front 86

What case law sets the Minimum Standards for Competency?

Back 86

Brown v. State (1960) Three prongs
Dusky v U.S. (1960)
Godinez v. Moran (1993) knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
Banks v. State (1980) Refusal to cooperate is not inability to cooperate
Allanson v. State (1981) Reiterates Brown: be aware of charge, aware of its consequences, and able to communicate with his lawyer

Front 87

What case law governs who is ultimately responsible to order a competency evaluation, when it can be heard, and consequences if it is missed?

Back 87

Pate v. Robinson (1966)
Lingo v. State (1968) Court can check competency before an attorney appointed
Baker v. State (1982) in retrospective procedure, the burden is on state to prove there is sufficient evidence to make a meaningful determination of competency at the time of the trial and if this burden is not met, the defendant must have a new trial

Front 88

What case law sets the precidence for dealing with amnesia in a competency case?

Back 88

Wilson v. U.S (1968) amnesia for the time of the crime did not per se render a defendant incompetent to stand trial
Banks v. State (1980) Inability to remember is not incompetency
Aldridge v. State (1981) 5 points for trial judge

Front 89

Where does the concept of restoration of comptency in the foreseeable future come from?

Back 89

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Front 90

What case law stipulates that a state cannot hold a patient indefinately when they are found IST? What must occur in such cases?

Back 90

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Civil Committment or Release

Front 91

What case law addresses when the question of competency can be addressed?

Back 91

Drope v Missouri (1975)
Smalls v. State (1980)

Incompetency can Be raised any time

Front 92

What case law governs disclosure and Fifth Amendment issues?

Back 92

Estelle v Smith (1981)
Godfrey v. Francis (1983) Miranda covers disclosure
Ingram v. State (1984) The Court said that if the defense introduces psychiatric testimony, this constitutes a waiver of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege in the same way that electing to testify at trial would.

Front 93

What case law defines for what a person being found competent is responsible?

Back 93

Godinez v. Moran (1993)
Competent for everything...

Front 94

What case law addresses the level of evidence required of the defendent in determining incompetence?

Back 94

Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)
Baker v. State (1982)

Preponderence of the evidence

Front 95

What case law in Georgia first established a distinction between mental responsibility (legal insanity) and mental competency?

Back 95

Long v. State (1868)

Front 96

What case law governs who may or may not testify at a competency hearing given it's civil court nature?

Back 96

Bacon v. State (1966) defendant may be called for cross-examination but may not be asked questions relating to guilt or innocence.
Lingo v. State (1968) both expert and non-expert witnesses can give opinions on issues of competency
Crawford v. State (1977) guilty or not guilty not relevant
Henderson v. State (1981) lay witnesses OK at a competency hearing because a civil proceeding offers testimony on mental state not criminal misconduct
Almond v. State (1986) inappropriate for the State to call defendant’s counsel

Front 97

What case law governs what can occur while a competency issue is pending before the court?

Back 97

Martin v. State (1978) Can’t accept plea of guilty when competency is pending
Newman v. State (1988) IST raises a presumption of incompetency but opinion of current competency restores the presumption of competency

Front 98

What case law defines who may evaluate an individual regarding competency?

Back 98

Henderson v. State (1981) psychiatric evaluation may be satisfied by a doctor qualified to give such an opinion who may not be a board-certified psychiatrist

Front 99

Where is the precident established that a client's attorney has no right to attend a competency evaluation?

Back 99

Godfrey v. Francis (1983)

Front 100

What case law defines who can be committed to a forensic facility and who has the authority to take such action in the State of Georgia?

Back 100

DHR v. Drust (1994) IST’s must be DD NOT Must accept & treat
DHR v. Long (1996) superior court has the authority to civilly commit a pretrial detainee who is IST as long as the criteria and procedures set forth in Chapter 3 of Title 37 were used.

Front 101

What is the case that provides guidelines for a trial judge, or subsequently an evaluator acting on behalf of the court, in determining whether an amnesiac individual can receive a fair trial? What are these guidlines?

Back 101

Aldridge v. State (1981)

(1) the defendant’s present ability to take the stand on matters other than the event he cannot remember
(2) the presence or absence of other psychological conditions that would hinder his present ability to assist his counsel

(3) the ability of defense and prosecution to reconstruct events without the defendant’s testimony

(4) strength of the prosecutions case against defendant

(5) access to the prosecutions files in helping defendant prepare his defense

Front 102

List the primary Federal case law that governs competency hearings in the State of Georgia.

Back 102

Dusky v U.S. (1960)

Pate v. Robinson (1966)

Wilson v. U.S (1968)

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)

Drope v Missouri (1975)

Estelle v Smith (1981)

Godinez v. Moran (1993)

Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)

Front 103

List the primary State case law that governs competency hearings in the State of Georgia.

Back 103

Long v. State (1868)
Brown v. State (1960)
Bacon v. State (1966)
Lingo v. State (1968)
Crawford v. State (1977)
Martin v. State (1978)
Banks v. State (1980)
Smalls v. State (1980)
Aldridge v. State (1981)
Henderson v. State (1981)
Allanson v. State (1981)
Baker v. State (1982)
Godfrey v. Francis (1983)
Ingram v. State (1984)
Almond v. State (1986)
Newman v. State (1988)
DHR v. Drust (1994)
DHR v. Long (1996)

Front 104

Give a chronological listing of pertinent case law that governs the forensic evaluation of competency to stand trial in the State of Georgia.

Back 104

Long v. State (1868)

Brown v. State (1960)
Dusky v U.S. (1960)
Pate v. Robinson (1966)
Bacon v. State (1966)
Lingo v. State (1968)
Wilson v. U.S (1968)

Jackson v. Indiana (1972)
Drope v Missouri (1975)
Crawford v. State (1977)
Martin v. State (1978)

Banks v. State (1980)
Smalls v. State (1980)
Aldridge v. State (1981)
Henderson v. State (1981)
Allanson v. State (1981)
Estelle v Smith (1981)
Baker v. State (1982)
Godfrey v. Francis (1983)
Ingram v. State (1984)
Almond v. State (1986)
Newman v. State (1988)

Godinez v. Moran (1993)
DHR v. Drust (1994)
DHR v. Long (1996)
Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996)

Front 105

Where is Georgia Regional Hospital of Atlanta?

Back 105

Decatur, Georgia