Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state‐wide review of court‐ordered reports

Abstract

Competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations are a critical part of certain criminal proceedings, and competence‐related evaluation and treatment are an increasing part of public mental health services. Whereas more research describes the defendants undergoing competence evaluations, less research has examined the actual reports detailing those competence evaluations. This study reviewed 3,644 court‐ordered CST evaluation reports submitted by 126 evaluators in Virginia since Virginia initiated an oversight system allowing for comprehensive review. The base rate of incompetence opinions was 38.8%, but these rates varied significantly across evaluation type (initial versus post‐restoration efforts) and evaluators (ranging from 9.1% to 76.8% incompetence rate). Results suggest generally strong compliance with state statutes guiding CST evaluations, but also highlight marked variability in forensic conclusions and reveal a few areas in which some reports fell short of statutory requirements and practice guidelines.

The impact of misdemeanor arrests on forensic mental health services: A state-wide review of Virginia competence to stand trial evaluations.

“…We reviewed 1,126 court-ordered CST evaluation reports completed by 90 forensic evaluators practicing in Virginia. All evaluators were licensed psychologists or psychiatrists on the Virginia Commissioner of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services’ (DBHDS) “List of Approved Evaluators” at the time of data collection (see Murrie et al, 2020 for further details on Virginia evaluators and competence evaluations). Generally speaking, defense counsel initiated the requests for competence evaluations (though in some cases, judges did so independently), and then the court formally ordered the evaluations, which were reimbursed by the Virginia court system.…”

“…5 Evaluators typically submitted a completed report 8.6 days (median ϭ 4; SD ϭ 17.9) after completing the evaluation. Some evaluators submitted a completed report to the court on the day of the 4 The CST reports coded in this sample are unique and do not overlap with Virginia CST reports described in earlier studies (e.g., Murrie et al, 2020). 5 The very lengthy delays typically reflect orders for competence reevaluation when the defendant spent lengthy periods in competency restoration services.…”

“…In Virginia, IST rates in a large-scale sample of court-ordered evaluations averaged 17.6% during the years 1993 to 1998 and increased to 27.3% during the years 1998 to 2004 (Warren et al, 2006). More recently, these IST rates increased further to 38.8% during the years 2016 to 2018 (Murrie et al, 2020). In Washington state, internal data reveal a steady increase in the proportion of evaluations that ended in IST determinations during the 2013−2018 period, with IST rates reaching 42–46% during 2018 (Huber, 2019).…”

“…As of 2015, Virginia had the seventh-highest estimated rate of misdemeanor offenses per 100,000 people among all states at 6,930 filings (Natapoff, 2018). Virginia also has a well-developed Forensic Evaluation Oversight System that allows for examination of all court-ordered forensic evaluation reports addressing adjudicative competence or legal sanity (Gardner et al, 2018; Murrie et al, 2020). Thus, this study is the first to identify and review competence evaluation reports among defendants charged only with misdemeanors.…”

Characteristics and outcomes for defendants charged with misdemeanors referred for court-ordered competency evaluations.

“…Results indicated this subset of defendants presented with significant competence-related deficits, with over 70% of the sample opined IST by the evaluator. This far exceeds estimates from previous research (e.g., Murrie et al, 2020;Pirelli This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”