cdTOCtest

(coco) #1

understanding and has a rational as well as factual
understanding of the proceedings against him.”


II. PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL


EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT WITH


RESPECT TO THE FITNESS TO PROCEED


(N.J.S.A. 2C:4-5)


A court should hold a competency hearing, even
when not requested, where the evidence raises a “bona fide
doubt” as to a defendant’s competence to stand trial. Pate
v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 842
(1966); State v. Spivey, 65 N.J. 21, 37 (1974); State v.
Lambert, 275 N.J. Super. 125, 128 (App. Div. 1994);
State v. Cecil, 260 N.J. Super. 475, 480 (App. Div. 1992),
certif. denied, 133 N.J. 431 (1993); State v. Otero, 238
N.J. Super. 649, 652 (Law Div. 1989); see also United
States v. DiGilio, 538 F.2d 972, 987 (3d Cir. 1976), cert.
denied sub nom. Lupo v. United States, 429 U.S. 1038, 97
S.Ct. 733 (1977) (“due process requires that the trial
court inquire sua sponte into the defendant’s competence
if there is reason to doubt it”). Once a defendant raises
a “bona fide doubt” as to competency, the burden rests
with the State to establish competency to stand trial by
a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Lambert, 275
N.J. Super. at 129; State v. Otero, 238 N.J. Super. at 652-
53; State v. Ehrenberg, 284 N.J. Super. 309, 313 (Law
Div. 1994); cf. Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 355,
369, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 1377, 1384 (1996) (the State may
presume that a defendant is competent and place upon
him the burden of proving his incompetence by a
preponderance of the evidence, but may not impose a
burden on the defendant to prove incompetence by clear
and convincing evidence) (citing in part Medina v.
California, 505 U.S. 437, 449, 112 S.Ct. 2572, 2579
(1992)). Moreover, when a bona fide doubt is raised as
to the competence of a mentally ill defendant to proceed
pro se, the court should appoint counsel to aid in the
competency determination, as well as to assist the
defendant in trying the case. State v. Ehrenberg, 284 N.J.
Super. at 315.


A. The Examination


Whenever there is a doubt as to a defendant’s fitness
to proceed, the competency issue may be raised at any
time, by either party, or by the court on its own motion.
N.J.S.A. 2C:4-5a; State v. Otero, 238 N.J. Super. at 652.
The court may then appoint at least one qualified
psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and


report on the condition of the defendant. N.J.S.A. 2C:4-
5a.

Alternatively, the court may order an examination of
the defendant by the Department of Human Services,
which shall be conducted at a jail, prison, or psychiatric
hospital. Id. To ensure that a defendant is not
unnecessarily hospitalized for the purpose of the
examination, a defendant shall not be admitted to a State
psychiatric hospital for such an examination unless the
psychiatrist or psychologist determines that hospitaliza-
tion is clinically necessary to perform the examination; if
so, the defendant may be placed in a State hospital for
that purpose for no more than 30 days. Id.

B. The Report

The report of the examination must include the
following:


  1. A description of the nature of the examination;

  2. A diagnosis of the mental condition of the
    defendant; and

  3. An opinion as to the defendant’s capacity to
    understand the proceedings against him and to assist in
    his own defense. N.J.S.A. 2C:4-5b.


The examiner may ask the defendant questions
regarding the crimes for which he is charged when such
questions are necessary to form an opinion as to a
“relevant issue.” Id.; see also State v. Moya, 329 N.J. Super.
499, 511 (App. Div. 2000) (one of the “relevant issues”
is the question of danger, i.e., an appropriate inquiry of
the crimes charged is not only pertinent to the issue of
competency, but also to the issue of danger). However,
the evidentiary character of any inculpatory statement is
limited expressly to the question of competency and is
not admissible on the issue of guilt. Id.; see also United
States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036, 1042, 1044 (3d Cir.
1975) (in accordance with the privilege against self-
incrimination, and by federal statute, statements made
by the defendant as a result of a court-ordered psychiatric
examination may be used for the purpose of determining
competency to stand trial, but may not be used against
the defendant at trial).

If the examination cannot be conducted due to the
unwillingness of the defendant, it is to be so stated in the
report, and include, if possible, an opinion as to whether
it is due to mental incompetence. N.J.S.A. 2C:4-5c.
Free download pdf