Mental Health - Competency

In general terms, the competency of a defendant is based on his or her current ability to understand and participate in the criminal process.

The evaluation of the defendant’s competency is primarily focused on his or her present ability to effectively function as a participant in the preparation of the defense through his or her legal counsel.

In Texas, a person is incompetent to stand trial if the person does not have:

• sufficient present ability to consult with the person's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or

• a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person.
  

A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sufficient present ability to consult with the person's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding is evaluated based on the following factors:

• Appreciation of charges and allegations

• Appreciation of possible penalties

• Understanding of the legal process and roles of those involved

• Ability to work with attorney and provide information of relevance

• Ability to understand and participate in proceedings

• Ability to testify

• Anything else the examiner believes to be of relevance

A rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against the person is evaluated based on the following factors:

• Relevant actors and their motivations

• Rights as a defendant

• Available pleas and their significance

• Charges

• Allegations

• Likely and possible penalties

• Understanding of, appreciation of, and ability to participate in the process

• Ability to ID & challenge evidence and witnesses

• Ability to testify

• Understanding & appreciation of plea agreement process

• Ability to Consult with an attorney

• Relationship with, beliefs about, & attitudes towards attorney

• Ability to provide attorney w/information of relevance

• Ability to deliberate & communicate w/ attorney regarding legal options and strategy

• Ability to assess likely outcomes in the context of legal decision making

Important Cases

• Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 US 454

  • Protection from incriminating statements made during the course of an ordered competence evaluation

• Godinez v. Moran (1993) 509 US 389

  • Competencies in the criminal process are uniform and not distinguishable

• Illinois v. Allen (1970) 397 US 337

  • Disruptive defendant can be removed from the courtroom

• Jackson v. Indiana (1972) 406 US 715

  • Limits on period and purpose of confinement of defendants adjudicated incompetent