When will a court order that a defendant be deemed unfit to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Visciotti, 2 Cal.4th 1, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388 (Cal. 1992):

It is apparent from this record that counsel's request for appointment of experts for the dual purpose of assisting counsel in making a decision on [2 Cal.4th 36] whether to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and to render an opinion on defendant's competence was preliminary to consideration by counsel, let alone the judge, of whether either had a doubt as to defendant's competence. Neither counsel nor the judge expressed a doubt as to defendant's competence and the judge did not order section 1368 proceedings. The typed recital in the form order to the effect that the defendant "may fall within the definition set forth in the appropriate statute indicated above" reflects nothing more than an explanation or justification for the appointment of the experts. 9 It is not the statement contemplated by section 1368 that the court presently has a doubt as to the defendant's competency. 10 (Cf. People v. Westbrook (1964) 62 Cal.2d 197, 203, 41 Cal.Rptr. 809, 397 P.2d 545 [criminal proceedings suspended and cause transferred to "psychiatric department," an order that could only be explained by the court having a doubt as to the defendant's sanity].)

In Hale, by contrast, the court expressed a doubt as to the defendant's competence based on the defendant's conduct and demeanor in the courtroom, inquired of counsel, who agreed that in his opinion the defendant was not competent, and ordered a hearing " 'on the question of the defendant's present mental competency.' " (People v. Hale, supra, 44 Cal.3d 531, 535-536, 244 Cal.Rptr. 114, 749 P.2d 769.) Similarly, in People v. Marks, supra, 45 Cal.3d 1335, 248 Cal.Rptr. 874, 756 P.2d 260, the trial court had stated a doubt as to the defendant's mental competence and had ordered " 'the question of his mental competence to be determined in a special hearing which will be held pursuant to Sections 1368.1 and 1369 of the Penal Code.' " (Id., at p. 1338, 248 Cal.Rptr. 874, 756 P.2d 260.)

Other Questions


When a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity at trial for a first-degree murder, can he still be found guilty of first degree murder? (California, United States of America)
When will a jury find a defendant not guilty by reason of reason of insanity? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant be found guilty of contempt of court for his "willful and knowing violation" of a protective order or stay-away order? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant is committed to a state hospital by reason of reason of insanity after having been found not guilty of a crime, what is the current commitment period? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the word 'court' as it is used to refer to the tribunal in which a defendant enters a guilty plea? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity have to plead not guilty to the same charge under section 1016 of the California Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant plead not guilty by reason of insanity in open court? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant enter a guilty plea in the Superior Court without having completed proceedings in the Municipal Court? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant who has been found guilty of a criminal offence by reason of reason of insanity have to serve a reduced sentence? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts dealt with a motion to strike a defendant's application to appeal against the court's order that defendant pay fees and fines? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.