BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1962 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1962 (Dodd) As Amended June 6, 2016 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(April 21, |SENATE: |36-0 |(August 18, | | | |2016) | | |2016) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: PUB. S. SUMMARY: Requires the establishment of guidelines on education and training for psychologists and psychiatrists to be appointed by the court to determine a defendant's mental competence. The Senate amendments: 1)Specify that the court shall appoint experts who meet the guidelines established in accordance with this subdivision or experts with equivalent experience and skills. 2)Give the court the discretion to appoint an expert who does not meet the guidelines, if there is no reasonably available expert who meets the guidelines or who has equivalent experience and skills. 3)Make technical, non-substantive changes. AB 1962 Page 2 EXISTING LAW: 1)Provides person cannot be tried to punishment or have his or her probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole revoked while that person is mentally incompetent. 2)States that a defendant is mentally incompetent for purposes of this chapter if, as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner. 3)Specifies that if a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant, he or she shall state that doubt in the record and inquire of the attorney for the defendant whether, in the opinion of the attorney, the defendant is mentally competent. 4)Provides that if counsel informs the court that he or she believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent, the court shall order that the question of the defendant's mental competence is to be determined in a hearing. 5)Requires a trial by court or jury of the question of mental competence to proceed in the following order: a) The court shall appoint a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist, and any other expert the court may deem appropriate, to examine the defendant; b) In any case where the defendant or the defendant's counsel informs the court that the defendant is not seeking AB 1962 Page 3 a finding of mental incompetence, the court shall appoint two psychiatrists, licensed psychologists, or a combination thereof; c) One of the psychiatrists or licensed psychologists may be named by the defense and one may be named by the prosecution; d) The examining psychiatrists or licensed psychologists shall evaluate the nature of the defendant's mental disorder, if any, the defendant's ability or inability to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner as a result of a mental disorder and, if within the scope of their licenses and appropriate to their opinions, whether or not treatment with antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate for the defendant and whether antipsychotic medication is likely to restore the defendant to mental competence; e) If an examining psychologist is of the opinion that antipsychotic medication may be medically appropriate for the defendant and that the defendant should be evaluated by a psychiatrist to determine if antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate, the psychologist shall inform the court of this opinion and his or her recommendation as to whether a psychiatrist should examine the defendant; f) The examining psychiatrists or licensed psychologists shall also address the issues of whether the defendant has capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication and whether the defendant is a danger to self or others; g) If the defendant is examined by a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist forms an opinion as to whether or not treatment with antipsychotic medication is medically appropriate, the psychiatrist shall inform the court of his or her opinions as to the likely or potential side effects of the medication, the expected efficacy of the medication, possible alternative treatments, and whether it is medically appropriate to administer antipsychotic AB 1962 Page 4 medication in the county jail; h) If it is suspected the defendant is developmentally disabled, the court shall appoint the director of the regional center for the developmentally, or the designee of the director, to examine the defendant. The court may order the developmentally disabled defendant to be confined for examination in a residential facility or state hospital; i) The regional center director shall recommend to the court a suitable residential facility or state hospital. Prior to issuing an order pursuant to this section, the court shall consider the recommendation of the regional center director. While the person is confined pursuant to order of the court under this section, he or she shall be provided with necessary care and treatment; j) The counsel for the defendant shall offer evidence in support of the allegation of mental incompetence; aa) If the defense declines to offer any evidence in support of the allegation of mental incompetence, the prosecution may do so; bb) The prosecution shall present its case regarding the issue of the defendant's present mental competence; cc) Each party may offer rebutting testimony, unless the court, for good reason in furtherance of justice, also permits other evidence in support of the original contention; dd) When the evidence is concluded, unless the case is submitted without final argument, the prosecution shall make its final argument and the defense shall conclude with its final argument to the court or jury; ee) In a jury trial, the court shall charge the jury, instructing them on all matters of law necessary for the rendering of a verdict. It shall be presumed that the defendant is mentally competent unless it is proved by a AB 1962 Page 5 preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is mentally incompetent. The verdict of the jury shall be unanimous; and ff) Only a court trial is required to determine competency in any proceeding for a violation of probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole. AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill would have: 1)Required the Department of State Hospitals to adopt guidelines establishing minimum education and training standards for a psychiatrist of licensed psychologist to be considered for appointment by the court to conduct examinations of defendants regarding mental incompetence. 2)Required the Department of State Hospitals to consult with the Judicial Council of California and groups or individuals representing judges, defense counsel, district attorneys, counties, advocates for people with developmental and mental disabilities, state psychologists and psychiatrists, professional associations and accredit bodies for psychologists and psychiatrists, and other interested stakeholders in the development of guidelines. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 1)Workgroup/guidelines: Minor and absorbable one-time costs (General Fund) to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) to convene the workgroup and develop the education and training guidelines. Minor, absorbable costs to workgroup members including the Judicial Council. 2)DSH caseload: Potential future decrease in DSH commitment costs (General Fund) to the extent the provisions of this measure result in fewer patients being unnecessarily referred to the DSH for treatment. While the caseload impact cannot be determined with certainty, for every DSH patient found AB 1962 Page 6 competent to stand trial in lieu of Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST), DSH could avoid treatment costs of about $200,000 (General Fund) per patient per year. Staff notes reducing the number of IST referrals would not necessarily reduce the DSH budget due to the existing waitlist for DSH beds. 3)State prisons/County jails: Potential future increase in state (General Fund) and local (Local Funds) incarceration costs for commitments to state prison and county jail to the extent persons that otherwise would have been found IST are instead found competent and subject to a resumed trial resulting in a felony or misdemeanor conviction. 4)Court-appointed evaluator costs: Potential increase in costs (General Fund*) to the courts for more experienced IST evaluators resulting from the imposition of the education and training standards as yet to be established by the DSH. Based on an estimated 15,000 mental competency filings statewide each year, even a small percentage of filings that include IST evaluations could increase overall costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. 5)Court workload: Potential future cost savings (General Fund*) to the extent additional court hearings are not required in cases when a non-licensed/authorized psychiatrist or psychologist is challenged for court-appointment. *Trial Court Trust Fund COMMENTS: "It is crucial that we ensure that the psychiatrists and psychologists who determine mental competency of criminal defendants have the experience to be able to provide an accurate determination. Without adequate training, experience, and standards, these evaluators may incorrectly determine a malingerer is incompetent to stand trial and place them in our state hospital system. The Department of State Hospitals estimates that between 15-20% of the patients referred to them AB 1962 Page 7 as incompetent to stand trial are patients who are faking mental illness to avoid being sentenced to prison (malingerers). This represents a significant unneeded cost to the state, and also a safety risk to employees and patients, as malingerers can prey on patients and staff once they arrive. Assaults occur on state hospital staff or other patients on a daily basis, sometimes resulting in serious injury, and ensuring evaluators are adequately trained will reduce erroneous commitments. Additionally, ensuring evaluators have the proper experience will ensure those who truly need treatment in our state hospitals are placed there to get the help they need and are not unnecessarily victimized." Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by: David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004179