|
REFERENCE TITLE: competency proceedings; time requirements; evaluations. |
|
State of Arizona House of Representatives Fiftieth Legislature First Regular Session 2011
|
|
HB 2591 |
|
|
|
Introduced by Representative Reeve
|
AN ACT
amending title 8, chapter 2, article 8, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 8-291.12; amending sections 13-753, 13-754 and 13-4505, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to competency proceedings.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 8, chapter 2, article 8, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 8-291.12, to read:
8-291.12. Duration of order; excluded time calculation
A. An order or combination of orders that is issued pursuant to section 8-291.09 or 8-291.10 shall not be in effect for more than two hundred forty days.
B. The court shall only consider the time a juvenile actually spends in a restoration to competency program when calculating the time requirements pursuant to subsection A of this section.
Sec. 2. Section 13-753, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
13-753. Mental evaluations of capital defendants; hearing; appeal; definitions
A. In any case in which the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, a person who is found to have mental retardation pursuant to this section shall not be sentenced to death but shall be sentenced to life or natural life.
B. If the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, the court, unless the defendant objects, shall appoint a prescreening psychological expert in order to conduct an evaluation within thirty days to determine the defendant's intelligence quotient using current community, nationally and culturally accepted intelligence testing procedures. The prescreening psychological expert shall submit a written report of the intelligence quotient determination to the court within ten days of the testing of the defendant. If the defendant objects to the prescreening, the defendant waives the right to a pretrial determination of mental retardation status. The waiver does not preclude the defendant from offering evidence of the defendant's mental retardation in the penalty phase.
C. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy‑five, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has mental retardation. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy‑five, the report shall be sealed by the court and be available only to the defendant. The report shall be released on the motion of any party if the defendant introduces the report in the present case or is convicted of an offense in the present case and the sentence is final. A prescreening determination that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy‑five does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's mental retardation or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding.
D. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is seventy‑five or less, the trial court, within ten days of receiving the written report, shall order the state and the defendant to each nominate three experts in mental retardation, or jointly nominate a single expert in mental retardation. The trial court shall appoint one expert in mental retardation nominated by the state and one expert in mental retardation nominated by the defendant, or a single expert in mental retardation jointly nominated by the state and the defendant, none of whom made the prescreening determination of the defendant's intelligence quotient. The trial court, in its discretion, may appoint an additional expert in mental retardation who was neither nominated by the state nor the defendant, and who did not make the prescreening determination of the defendant's intelligence quotient. Within forty‑five days after the trial court orders the state and the defendant to nominate experts in mental retardation, or on the appointment of such experts, whichever is later, the state and the defendant shall provide to the experts in mental retardation and the court any available records that may be relevant to the defendant's mental retardation status. The court may extend the deadline for providing records on good cause shown by the state or defendant.
E. Not less than twenty days after receipt of the records provided pursuant to subsection D of this section, or twenty days after the expiration of the deadline for providing the records, whichever is later, each expert in mental retardation shall examine the defendant using current community, nationally and culturally accepted physical, developmental, psychological and intelligence testing procedures, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has mental retardation. Within fifteen days of examining the defendant, each expert in mental retardation shall submit a written report to the trial court that includes the expert's opinion as to whether the defendant has mental retardation.
F. If the scores on all the tests for intelligence quotient administered to the defendant are above seventy, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has mental retardation. This does not preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's mental retardation or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding.
G. No less than thirty days after the experts in mental retardation submit reports to the court and before trial, the trial court shall hold a hearing to determine if the defendant has mental retardation. At the hearing, the defendant has the burden of proving mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence. A determination by the trial court that the defendant's intelligence quotient is sixty‑five or lower establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant has mental retardation. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude a defendant with an intelligence quotient of seventy or below from proving mental retardation by clear and convincing evidence.
H. If the trial court finds that the defendant has mental retardation, the trial court shall dismiss the intent to seek the death penalty, shall not impose a sentence of death on the defendant if the defendant is convicted of first degree murder and shall dismiss one of the attorneys appointed under rule 6.2, Arizona rules of criminal procedure unless the court finds that there is good cause to retain both attorneys. If the trial court finds that the defendant does not have mental retardation, the court's finding does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's mental retardation or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding.
I. Within ten days after the trial court makes a finding on mental retardation, the state or the defendant may file a petition for special action with the Arizona court of appeals pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions. The filing of the petition for special action is governed by the rules of procedure for special actions, except that the court of appeals shall exercise jurisdiction and decide the merits of the claims raised.
J. This section applies to all capital sentencing proceedings.
K. For the purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Adaptive behavior" means the effectiveness or degree to which the defendant meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of the defendant's age and cultural group.
2. "Expert in mental retardation" means a psychologist or physician licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 17 or 19.1 with at least five years' experience in the testing or testing assessment, evaluation and diagnosis of mental retardation.
3. "Mental retardation" means a condition based on a mental deficit that involves significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with significant impairment in adaptive behavior, where the onset of the foregoing conditions occurred before the defendant reached the age of eighteen.
4. "Prescreening psychological expert" means a psychologist licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 19.1 with at least five years' experience in the testing, evaluation and diagnosis of mental retardation.
5. "Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" means a full scale intelligence quotient of seventy or lower. The court in determining the intelligence quotient shall take into account the margin of error for the test administered.
Sec. 3. Section 13-754, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
13-754. Capital defendant prescreening evaluation for competency and sanity
A. If the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, unless the defendant objects, the court shall appoint a psychologist or psychiatrist licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 17 or 19.1 to conduct a prescreening evaluation within thirty days to determine if reasonable grounds exist to conduct another examination to determine the following:
1. The defendant's competency to stand trial.
2. Whether the defendant was sane at the time the defendant allegedly committed the offense.
B. The court may appoint separate psychological experts to conduct each of the evaluations ordered pursuant to subsection A.
C. The court shall seal any psychological expert's report pursuant to this section, and the report shall only be available to the defendant. The report shall be released on the motion of any party if the defendant introduces the report in the present case, raises a mental health defense at trial or sentencing or is convicted of an offense in the present case and the sentence is final.
D. If the prescreening evaluation indicates that reasonable grounds exist to conduct another examination as prescribed by subsection A, the court shall treat the prescreening evaluation as a preliminary examination pursuant to rule 11.2(c) of the Arizona rules of criminal procedure and shall proceed in accordance with rule 11 of the Arizona rules of criminal procedure.
Sec. 4. Section 13-4505, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
13-4505. Appointment of experts; costs
A. If the court determines pursuant to section 13‑4503 that reasonable grounds exist for a competency examination, the court shall appoint two or more mental health experts to examine the defendant, issue a report and, if necessary, testify regarding the defendant's competency. The court, on its own motion or upon motion of any party, may order that one of the mental health experts appointed shall be a physician specializing in psychiatry and licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17. The state and the defendant, upon approval of the court, may stipulate to the appointment of only one expert.
B. The court may order the defendant to submit to physical, neurological or psychological examinations, if necessary, to adequately determine the defendant's mental condition.
C. The court shall order the defendant to pay the costs of the court ordered examination, except that if the court finds the defendant is indigent or otherwise unable to pay all or any part of the costs or if the prosecution requested the examination, the court shall order the county to pay the costs of the examination or, if the case is referred by a municipal court judge, the court shall order the city to pay the costs of the examination.
D. This section does not prohibit any party from retaining its own expert to conduct any additional examinations at its own expense. The state is entitled to have the defendant evaluated by an equal number of experts as the defendant hires.
E. A person who is appointed as a mental health expert or clinical liaison is entitled to immunity, except that the mental health expert or clinical liaison may be liable for intentional, wanton or grossly negligent acts that are done in the performance of the expert's or liaison's duties.