Rule 4.130. Mental competency proceedings
This rule applies to proceedings in the superior court under Penal Code section 1367 et seq. to determine the mental competency of a criminal defendant.
(b) Initiation of mental competency proceedings
(1)The court must initiate mental competency proceedings if the judge has a reasonable doubt, based on substantial evidence, about the defendant's competence to stand trial.
(2)The opinion of counsel, without a statement of specific reasons supporting that opinion, does not constitute substantial evidence. The court may allow defense counsel to present his or her opinion regarding the defendant's mental competency in camera if the court finds there is reason to believe that attorney-client privileged information will be inappropriately revealed if the hearing is conducted in open court.
(3)In a felony case, if the judge initiates mental competency proceedings prior to the preliminary examination, counsel for the defendant may request a preliminary examination as provided in Penal Code section 1368.1(a).
(c) Effect of initiating mental competency proceedings
(1)If mental competency proceedings are initiated, criminal proceedings are suspended and may not be reinstated until a trial on the competency of the defendant has been concluded and the defendant either:
(A)Is found mentally competent; or
(B)Has his or her competency restored under Penal Code section 1372.
(2)In misdemeanor cases, speedy trial requirements are tolled during the suspension of criminal proceedings for mental competency evaluation and trial. If criminal proceedings are later reinstated and time is not waived, the trial must be commenced within 30 days after the reinstatement of the criminal proceedings, as provided by Penal Code section 1382(a)(3).
(3)In felony cases, speedy trial requirements are tolled during the suspension of criminal proceedings for mental competency evaluation and trial. If criminal proceedings are reinstated, unless time is waived, time periods to commence the preliminary examination or trial are as follows:
(A)If criminal proceedings were suspended before the preliminary hearing had been conducted, the preliminary hearing must be commenced within 10 days of the reinstatement of the criminal proceedings, as provided in Penal Code section 859b.
(B)If criminal proceedings were suspended after the preliminary hearing had been conducted, the trial must be commenced within 60 days of the reinstatement of the criminal proceedings, as provided in Penal Code section 1382(a)(2).
(d) Examination of defendant after initiation of mental competency proceedings
(1)On initiation of mental competency proceedings, the court must inquire whether the defendant, or defendant's counsel, seeks a finding of mental incompetence.
(A)If the defense informs the court that the defendant is seeking a finding of mental incompetence, the court must appoint at least one expert to examine the defendant.
(B)If the defense informs the court that the defendant is not seeking a finding of mental incompetence, the court must appoint two experts to examine the defendant. The defense and the prosecution may each name one expert from the court's list of approved experts.
(2)Any court-appointed experts must examine the defendant and advise the court on the defendant's competency to stand trial. Experts' reports are to be submitted to the court, counsel for the defendant, and the prosecution.
(3)Statements made by the defendant during the examination to experts appointed under this rule, and products of any such statements, may not be used in a trial on the issue of the defendant's guilt or in a sanity trial should defendant enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(e) Trial on mental competency
(1)Regardless of the conclusions or findings of the court-appointed expert, the court must conduct a trial on the mental competency of the defendant if the court has initiated mental competency proceedings under (b).
(2)At the trial, the defendant is presumed to be mentally competent, and it is the burden of the party contending that the defendant is not mentally competent to prove the defendant's mental incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)In addition to the testimony of the experts appointed by the court under (d), either party may call additional experts or other relevant witnesses.
(4)After the presentation of the evidence and closing argument, the trier of fact is to determine whether the defendant is mentally competent or mentally incompetent.
(A)If the matter is tried by a jury, the verdict must be unanimous.
(B)If the parties have waived the right to a jury trial, the court's findings must be made in writing or placed orally in the record.
(f) Posttrial procedure
(1)If the defendant is found mentally competent, the court must reinstate the criminal proceedings.
(2)If the defendant is found to be mentally incompetent, the criminal proceedings remain suspended and the court must follow the procedures stated in Penal Code section 1370 et seq.
Rule 4.130 adopted effective January 1, 2007.
Advisory Committee Comment
The case law interpreting Penal Code section 1367 et seq. established a procedure for judges to follow in cases where there is a concern whether the defendant is legally competent to stand trial, but the concern does not necessarily rise to the level of a reasonable doubt based on substantial evidence. Before finding a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's competency to stand trial and initiating competency proceedings under Penal Code section 1368 et seq., the court may appoint an expert to assist the court in determining whether such a reasonable doubt exists. As noted in People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 34–36, the court may appoint an expert when it is concerned about the mental competency of the defendant, but the concern does not rise to the level of a reasonable doubt, based on substantial evidence, required by Penal Code section 1367 et seq. Should the results of this examination present substantial evidence of mental incompetency, the court must initiate competency proceedings under (b).
Once mental competency proceedings under Penal Code section 1367 et seq. have been initiated, the court is to appoint at least one expert to examine the defendant under (d). Under no circumstances is the court obligated to appoint more than two experts. (Pen. Code, § 1369(a).) The costs of the experts appointed under (d) are to be paid for by the court as the expert examinations and reports are for the benefit or use of the court in determining whether the defendant is mentally incompetent. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.810, function 10.)
Subdivision (d)(3), which provides that the defendant's statements made during the examination cannot be used in a trial on the defendant's guilt or a sanity trial in a not guilty by reason of sanity trial, is based on the California Supreme Court holdings in People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504 and People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876.
Although the court is not obligated to appoint additional experts, counsel may nonetheless retain their own experts to testify at a trial on the defendant's competency. (See People v. Mayes (1988) 202 Cal.App.4th 908, 917–918.) These experts are not for the benefit or use of the court, and their costs are not to be paid by the court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.810, function 10.)
The expert reports, unless sealed under rule 2.550, are publicly accessible court documents.
Both the prosecution and the defense have the right to a jury trial. (See People v. Superior Court (McPeters) (1995) 169 Cal.App.3d 796.) Defense counsel may waive this right, even over the objection of the defendant. (People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 970.)
Either defense counsel or the prosecution (or both) may argue that the defendant is not competent to stand trial. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 804 [defense counsel may advocate that defendant is not competent to stand trial and may present evidence of defendant's mental incompetency regardless of defendant's desire to be found competent].) If the defense declines to present evidence of the defendant's mental incompetency, the prosecution may do so. (Pen. Code, § 1369(b)(2).) If the prosecution elects to present evidence of the defendant's mental incompetency, it is the prosecution's burden to prove the incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Mixon (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1471, 1484, fn. 12.)
Should both parties decline to present evidence of defendant's mental incompetency, the court may do so. In those cases, the court is not to instruct the jury that a party has the burden of proof. "Rather, the proper approach would be to instruct the jury on the legal standard they are to apply to the evidence before them without allocating the burden of proof to one party or the other." (People v. Sherik (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 444, 459–460.)