INCOMPETENCE TO PROCEED: PROCEDURE FOR RAISING THE ISSUE

1968 Adoption. (a) Same as section 917.01, Florida Statutes, except it was felt that court cannot by rule direct institution officials. Thus words, “he shall report this fact to the court which conducted the hearing. If the officer so reports” and concluding sentence, “No defendant committed by a court to an institution, by reason of the examination referred to in this paragraph, shall be released therefrom, without the consent of the court committing him,” should be omitted from the rule but retained by statute. (b) Same as section 909.17, Florida Statutes. (c) Same as section 917.02, Florida Statutes.

1972 Amendment. Subdivision (a)(3) refers to Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 730, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972); also, United States v. Curry, 410 F.2d 1372 (4th Cir. 1969). Subdivision (d) is added to give the court authority to confine an insane person who is likely to cause harm to others even if the person is otherwise entitled to bail. The amendment does not apply unless the defendant contends that he or she is insane at the time of trial or at the time the offense was committed. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent admittedly insane persons from being at large when there is a likelihood they may injure themselves or others.

1977 Amendment. This language is taken, almost verbatim, from existing rule 3.210(a). The word “insane” is changed to reflect the new terminology, “competence to stand trial.” The definition of competence to stand trial is taken verbatim from the United States Supreme Court formulation of the test in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). (a)(2) The first part of this paragraph is taken, almost verbatim, from the existing rule. The right of counsel for the state to move for such examination has been added. (b)(1) In order to confine the defendant as incompetent to stand trial, the defendant must be confined under the same standards as those used for civil commitment. These criteria were set forth in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845, 32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972), in which it was held to be a denial of equal protection to subject a criminal defendant to a more lenient commitment standard than would be applied to one not charged with a crime. Therefore, the criteria for involuntary civil commitment should be incorporated as the criteria for commitment for incompetence to stand trial. In this subdivision is found the most difficult of the problems to resolve for the rule. The head-on conflict between the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, a part of the executive branch of the government, and the courts occurs when the administrator determines that a defendant no longer should be confined, but the trial judge does not wish the defendant released because the trial judge feels that further commitment is necessary. Under the civil commitment model, the administrator has the power to release a committed patient at such time as the administrator feels the patient no longer meets the standards for commitment. Obviously, since a defendant in a criminal case is under the jurisdiction of the court, such immediate release is unwarranted. The time period of the initial commitment parallels that of civil commitment. (b)(2) treats the problem of what the court should do with a defendant who is not competent to stand trial, but who fails to meet the criteria for commitment. If incompetent, but not in need of treatment and not dangerous, then the defendant cannot be committed. The present rule provides for dismissal of the charges immediately. There appears to be no reason why someone in this situation should not be released pending trial on bail, as would other defendants. The finding of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” required under the present rule when a defendant cannot be tried by reason of incompetence, seems inappropriate since such a defense admits the commission of the fact of the crime but denies the defendant’s mental state. Since no such finding has been made (and cannot be made), the verdict entered of not guilty by reason of insanity is not appropriate. Further, it would give a defendant, later competent, a res judicata or double jeopardy defense, the verdict being a final determination of guilt or innocence. It would seem far more appropriate to withdraw the charges. A defendant who regains competence within the period of the statute of limitations could still be tried for the offense, if such trial is warranted. One of the major problems confronting the institution in which an incompetent person is being held is that of obtaining consent for medical procedures and treatment, not necessarily mental treatment. Generally, under the statute, the patient civilly committed is not thereby deemed incompetent to consent. At the commitment hearing in the civil proceedings, the judge may make the general competency determination. It is recommended that the same process apply in the hearing on competency to stand trial, and that, if the trial judge does not find the defendant incompetent for other purposes, the defendant be legally considered competent for such other purposes.