California Legislature—2015–16 Regular Session

Assembly BillNo. 1962


Introduced by Assembly Member Dodd

February 12, 2016


An act to amend Section 1369 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1962, as introduced, Dodd. Criminal proceedings: mental competence.

Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant’s mental competency is evaluated, which includes requiring the court to appoint a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, and any other expert the court may deem appropriate.

This bill would require psychiatrists, licensed psychologists, and any other expert the court deems appropriate to have forensic experience.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

P1    1

SECTION 1.  

Section 1369 of the Penal Code is amended to
2read:

3

1369.  

Except as stated in subdivision (g), a trial by court or
4jury of the question of mental competence shall proceed in the
5following order:

P2    1(a) The court shall appoint a psychiatrist or licensed
2psychologist, and any other expertbegin insert with forensic experienceend insert the
3court may deem appropriate, to examine the defendant. In any case
4where the defendant or the defendant’s counsel informs the court
5that the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence,
6the court shall appoint two psychiatrists, licensed psychologists,
7or a combination thereof. One of the psychiatrists or licensed
8psychologists may be named by the defense and one may be named
9by the prosecution. The examining psychiatrists or licensed
10psychologists shall evaluate the nature of the defendant’s mental
11disorder, if any, the defendant’s ability or inability to understand
12the nature of the criminal proceedings or assist counsel in the
13conduct of a defense in a rational manner as a result of a mental
14disorder and, if within the scope of their licenses and appropriate
15to their opinions, whether or not treatment with antipsychotic
16medication is medically appropriate for the defendant and whether
17antipsychotic medication is likely to restore the defendant to mental
18competence. If an examining psychologist is of the opinion that
19antipsychotic medication may be medically appropriate for the
20defendant and that the defendant should be evaluated by a
21psychiatrist to determine if antipsychotic medication is medically
22appropriate, the psychologist shall inform the court of this opinion
23and his or her recommendation as to whether a psychiatrist should
24examine the defendant. The examining psychiatrists or licensed
25psychologists shall also address the issues of whether the defendant
26has capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication
27and whether the defendant is a danger to self or others. If the
28defendant is examined by a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist forms
29an opinion as to whether or not treatment with antipsychotic
30medication is medically appropriate, the psychiatrist shall inform
31the court of his or her opinions as to the likely or potential side
32effects of the medication, the expected efficacy of the medication,
33possible alternative treatments, and whether it is medically
34appropriate to administer antipsychotic medication in the county
35jail. If it is suspected the defendant is developmentally disabled,
36the court shall appoint the director of the regional center for the
37developmentally disabled established under Division 4.5
38(commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions
39Code, or the designee of the director, to examine the defendant.
40The court may order the developmentally disabled defendant to
P2    1 be confined for examination in a residential facility or state
2hospital.

3The regional center director shall recommend to the court a
4suitable residential facility or state hospital. Prior to issuing an
5order pursuant to this section, the court shall consider the
6recommendation of the regional center director. While the person
7is confined pursuant to order of the court under this section, he or
8she shall be provided with necessary care and treatment.

9(b) (1) The counsel for the defendant shall offer evidence in
10support of the allegation of mental incompetence.

11(2) If the defense declines to offer any evidence in support of
12the allegation of mental incompetence, the prosecution may do so.

13(c) The prosecution shall present its case regarding the issue of
14 the defendant’s present mental competence.

15(d) Each party may offer rebutting testimony, unless the court,
16for good reason in furtherance of justice, also permits other
17evidence in support of the original contention.

18(e) When the evidence is concluded, unless the case is submitted
19without final argument, the prosecution shall make its final
20argument and the defense shall conclude with its final argument
21to the court or jury.

22(f) In a jury trial, the court shall charge the jury, instructing
23them on all matters of law necessary for the rendering of a verdict.
24It shall be presumed that the defendant is mentally competent
25unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the
26defendant is mentally incompetent. The verdict of the jury shall
27be unanimous.

28(g) Only a court trial is required to determine competency in
29any proceeding for a violation of probation, mandatory supervision,
30postrelease community supervision, or parole.

begin insert

31(h) Psychiatrists and licensed psychologists appointed by the
32court pursuant to this section shall possess forensic experience.

end insert


O

    99