BILL REQ. #: S-0882.1
State of Washington | 63rd Legislature | 2013 Regular Session |
Read first time 02/04/13. Referred to Committee on Law & Justice.
AN ACT Relating to competency to stand trial evaluations; and amending RCW 10.77.060 and 10.77.068.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1 RCW 10.77.060 and 2012 c 256 s 3 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1)(a) Whenever a defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of
insanity, or there is reason to doubt his or her competency, the court
on its own motion or on the motion of any party shall either: (i)
Appoint a qualified expert or professional person, whom the prosecuting
attorney shall approve, to evaluate and report upon the mental
condition of the defendant; or (ii) request the secretary to designate
a qualified expert or professional person, who shall be approved by the
prosecuting attorney, to evaluate and report upon the mental condition
of the defendant.
(b) The signed order of the court shall serve as authority for the
evaluator to be given access to all records held by any mental health,
medical, educational, or correctional facility that relate to the
present or past mental, emotional, or physical condition of the
defendant. If the court is advised by any party that the defendant may
have a developmental disability, the evaluation must be performed by a
developmental disabilities professional.
(c) The evaluator shall assess the defendant in a jail, detention
facility, in the community, or in court to determine whether a period
of inpatient commitment will be necessary to complete an accurate
evaluation. If inpatient commitment is needed, the signed order of the
court shall serve as authority for the evaluator to request the jail or
detention facility to transport the defendant to a hospital or secure
mental health facility for a period of commitment not to exceed fifteen
days from the time of admission to the facility. Otherwise, the
evaluator shall complete the evaluation.
(d) The court may commit the defendant for evaluation to a hospital
or secure mental health facility without an assessment if: (i) The
defendant is charged with murder in the first or second degree; (ii)
the court finds that it is more likely than not that an evaluation in
the jail will be inadequate to complete an accurate evaluation; or
(iii) the court finds that an evaluation outside the jail setting is
necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of the defendant. The
court shall not order an initial inpatient evaluation for any purpose
other than a competency evaluation.
(e) The order shall indicate whether, in the event the defendant is
committed to a hospital or secure mental health facility for
evaluation, all parties agree to waive the presence of the defendant or
to the defendant's remote participation at a subsequent competency
hearing or presentation of an agreed order if the recommendation of the
evaluator is for continuation of the stay of criminal proceedings, or
if the opinion of the evaluator is that the defendant remains
incompetent and there is no remaining restoration period, and the
hearing is held prior to the expiration of the authorized commitment
period.
(f) When a defendant is ordered to be committed for inpatient
evaluation under this subsection (1), the court may delay granting bail
until the defendant has been evaluated for competency or sanity and
appears before the court. Following the evaluation, in determining
bail the court shall consider: (i) Recommendations of the evaluator
regarding the defendant's competency, sanity, or diminished capacity;
(ii) whether the defendant has a recent history of one or more violent
acts; (iii) whether the defendant has previously been acquitted by
reason of insanity or found incompetent; (iv) whether it is reasonably
likely the defendant will fail to appear for a future court hearing;
and (v) whether the defendant is a threat to public safety.
(2) The court may direct that a qualified expert or professional
person retained by or appointed for the defendant be permitted to
witness the evaluation authorized by subsection (1) of this section,
and that the defendant shall have access to all information obtained by
the court appointed experts or professional persons. The defendant's
expert or professional person shall have the right to file his or her
own report following the guidelines of subsection (3) of this section.
If the defendant is indigent, the court shall upon the request of the
defendant assist him or her in obtaining an expert or professional
person.
(3) The report of the evaluation shall include the following:
(a) A description of the nature of the evaluation;
(b) A diagnosis or description of the current mental status of the
defendant;
(c) If the defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect, or
has a developmental disability, an opinion as to competency;
(d) If the defendant has indicated his or her intention to rely on
the defense of insanity pursuant to RCW 10.77.030, and an evaluation
and report by an expert or professional person has been provided
concluding that the defendant was criminally insane at the time of the
alleged offense, an opinion as to the defendant's sanity at the time of
the act, and an opinion as to whether the defendant presents a
substantial danger to other persons, or presents a substantial
likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or
security, unless kept under further control by the court or other
persons or institutions, provided that no opinion shall be rendered
under this subsection (3)(d) unless the evaluator or court determines
that the defendant is competent to stand trial;
(e) When directed by the court, if an evaluation and report by an
expert or professional person has been provided concluding that the
defendant lacked the capacity at the time of the offense to form the
mental state necessary to commit the charged offense, an opinion as to
the capacity of the defendant to have a particular state of mind which
is an element of the offense charged;
(f) An opinion as to whether the defendant should be evaluated by
a designated mental health professional under chapter 71.05 RCW.
(4) The secretary may execute such agreements as appropriate and
necessary to implement this section and may choose to designate more
than one evaluator.
Sec. 2 RCW 10.77.068 and 2012 c 256 s 2 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1)(a) The legislature establishes the following performance
targets for the timeliness of the completion of accurate and reliable
evaluations of competency to stand trial and admissions for inpatient
services related to competency to proceed or stand trial for adult
criminal defendants. The legislature ((recognizes that these targets
may not be achievable in all cases without compromise to quality of
evaluation services, but)) intends for the department to manage,
allocate, and request appropriations for resources in order to meet
these targets whenever possible without sacrificing the accuracy of
competency evaluations, and to otherwise make sustainable improvements
and track performance related to the timeliness of competency services:
(i) For a state hospital to extend an offer of admission to a
defendant in pretrial custody for legally authorized treatment or
evaluation services related to competency, or to extend an offer of
admission for legally authorized services following dismissal of
charges based on incompetent to proceed or stand trial, seven days or
less;
(ii) For completion of a competency evaluation in jail and
distribution of the evaluation report for a defendant in pretrial
custody, seven days or less;
(iii) For completion of a competency evaluation in the community
and distribution of the evaluation report for a defendant who is
released from custody and makes a reasonable effort to cooperate with
the evaluation, twenty-one days or less.
(b) The time periods measured in these performance targets shall
run from the date on which the state hospital receives the court
referral and charging documents, discovery, and criminal history
information related to the defendant. The targets in (a)(i) and (ii)
of this subsection shall be phased in over a six-month period from May
1, 2012. The target in (a)(iii) of this subsection shall be phased in
over a twelve-month period from May 1, 2012.
(c) It is the responsibility of the court to ensure the timely
completion of accurate and reliable evaluations of competency to stand
trial in accordance with this section to each person, charged with a
crime. If in any six-month time period, the state hospital has not met
the performance targets for timely completion of competency evaluations
and restorations of competency in order to stand trial in fifty percent
of cases submitted by any one county, the court of that county shall
appoint a qualified expert or professional person, whom the prosecuting
attorney shall approve, to evaluate and report upon the mental
condition of the defendant. An expert or professional person appointed
by the court for an indigent person pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter must be compensated for his or her services out of funds of the
department, in an amount determined by the department to be fair and
reasonable.
(d) The legislature recognizes the following nonexclusive list of
circumstances that may place achievement of targets for completion of
competency services described in (a) of this subsection out of the
department's reach in an individual case without aspersion to the
efforts of the department:
(i) Despite a timely request, the department has not received
necessary medical clearance information regarding the current medical
status of a defendant in pretrial custody for the purposes of admission
to a state hospital;
(ii) The individual circumstances of the defendant make accurate
completion of an evaluation of competency to proceed or stand trial
dependent upon review of medical history information which is in the
custody of a third party and cannot be immediately obtained by the
department. Completion of a competency evaluation shall not be
postponed for procurement of medical history information which is
merely supplementary to the competency determination;
(iii) Completion of the referral is frustrated by lack of
availability or participation by counsel, jail or court personnel,
interpreters, or the defendant; or
(iv) An unusual spike in the receipt of evaluation referrals or in
the number of defendants requiring restoration services has occurred,
causing temporary delays until the unexpected excess demand for
competency services can be resolved.
(2) The department shall:
(a) Develop, document, and implement procedures to monitor the
clinical status of defendants admitted to a state hospital for
competency services that allow the state hospital to accomplish early
discharge for defendants for whom clinical objectives have been
achieved or may be achieved before expiration of the commitment period;
(b) Investigate the extent to which patients admitted to a state
hospital under this chapter overstay time periods authorized by law and
take reasonable steps to limit the time of commitment to authorized
periods; and
(c) Establish written standards for the productivity of forensic
evaluators and utilize these standards to internally review the
performance of forensic evaluators.
(3) Following any quarter in which a state hospital has failed to
meet one or more of the performance targets in subsection (1) of this
section after full implementation of the performance target, the
department shall report to the executive and the legislature the extent
of this deviation and describe any corrective action being taken to
improve performance. This report must be made publicly available. An
average may be used to determine timeliness under this subsection.
(4) Beginning December 1, 2013, the department shall report
annually to the legislature and the executive on the timeliness of
services related to competency to proceed or stand trial and the
timeliness with which court referrals accompanied by charging
documents, discovery, and criminal history information are provided to
the department relative to the signature date of the court order. The
report must be in a form that is accessible to the public and that
breaks down performance by county.
(5) This section does not create any new entitlement or cause of
action related to the timeliness of competency evaluations or admission
for inpatient services related to competency to proceed or stand trial,
nor can it form the basis for contempt sanctions under chapter 7.21 RCW
or a motion to dismiss criminal charges.