Competency to stand trial is the most common type
of criminal forensic evaluation, with approximately
60,000 evaluations conducted annually in the United
States. That is, between 2% and 8% of all felony
defendants are referred for evaluations of competency
to stand trial each year. The issue at stake in an evalu-
ation of competency to stand trial is the defendant’s
current mental functioning; this is often confused
with criminal responsibility (insanity), wherein the
issue at stake is the defendant’s mental state at the
time of the offense. The prohibition against trying an
incompetent defendant dates back to at least the 17th
century and serves the dual purpose of ensuring a fair
trial for the defendant and preserving the dignity of
the adversarial process.
Competency to stand trial is but one type of com-
petency that falls under the larger, more encompassing
headings of adjudicative competence or competency
to proceed. The issue of a defendant’s competence
may be raised at any point in the proceedings before a
verdict is rendered; thus, competency to confess
(waive Mirandarights), competency to plead guilty,
competency to waive the right to counsel, and compe-
tency to stand trial all fall under the umbrella of adju-
dicative competence or competency to proceed.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in Godinez v.
Moran(1993) indicated that the standards for the var-
ious types of criminal competencies (pleading guilty,
waiving counsel, and standing trial) were to be the
same. Thus, in light of the decision in Godinezas well
as the fact that upward of 90% of criminal cases are
resolved through the plea bargaining process rather
than by going to trial per se, evaluations of compe-
tency to stand trial necessarily include evaluation of
the defendant’s ability to plead guilty and to engage in
the plea bargaining process. The term competency to
stand trialhas begun to be replaced by the term com-
petency to proceedin some states, but for the purpose
of remaining true to the literature and commentary
that have developed up to this point, the term compe-
tency to stand trialis used in this entry.Legal Standard and Procedures
Since 1960, every state has adopted theDuskystandard
either verbatim or with minor variations in the word-
ing. In addition, some states have elaborated their
competency statutes to include articulated standards
wherein various specific factors that must be addressed
by evaluators in a competency evaluation are set out.The issue of a defendant’s competency to stand
trial may be raised by any party to the proceedings
(the defense, the prosecution, or the court more gener-
ally), although in the vast majority of cases the issue
is raised by the defense. A formal inquiry into a defen-
dant’s competency to stand trial must take place if a
“bona fide doubt” about his or her competency exists,
as all defendants are presumed competent.
Competency evaluations historically occurred in
inpatient settings; however, the majority of competency
evaluations now occur in community-based settings,
including mental health centers, private practice offices,
and jails. Research has indicated that approximately
20% (although this varies by jurisdiction) of all defen-
dants referred for competency evaluation are deemed
incompetent; thus, the vast majority of referred defen-
dants are competent to stand trial. Various explanations
for the high rate of competence have been put forth,
including defense attorneys using the referrals as “fish-
ing expeditions” to attempt to gather information that
may be helpful in their defense or to investigate the fea-
sibility of a later insanity plea. Others suggest that these
referrals are made to prolong the amount of time it
takes to get to trial, thus giving the defense (or perhaps
the prosecution) more time to prepare the case; to have
a mentally ill defendant hospitalized or treated when he
or she will not voluntarily undergo hospitalization or
treatment; or so that prosecutors and/or defense attor-
neys may guard against the possibility of a later appeal
on the grounds that an individual with a known history
of mental illness was allowed to proceed to trial under
the presumption of competence. It is unclear how often
the aforementioned reasons serve as the primary ratio-
nale for requesting a competency evaluation. In addi-
tion, it is important to acknowledge that the procedures
used in various jurisdictions may account for the differ-
ing rates of incompetence. For example, in jurisdictions
that use a screening process to eliminate those who are
clearly competent from further evaluation, a higher rate
of incompetence would be expected among defendants
who undergo a formal evaluation of competency to
stand trial.
Depending on the jurisdiction, one or more mental
health professionals will evaluate a defendant’s com-
petency to stand trial and submit the results of this
evaluation to the court in the form of a written report.
A hearing on the issue of competency may take place;
however, in most instances, this does not occur.
Instead, the court usually renders a decision regarding
the defendant’s competency on the basis of the mental120 ———Competency to Stand TrialC-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 120