Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1996-04-16 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3263 SB 321 Senator Taylor requested that the reconsideration on SENATE BILL NO. 321 "An Act relating to civil commitment of a criminal defendant who is found to be mentally incompetent" be taken up. SENATE BILL NO. 321 was before the Senate on reconsideration. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3264 SB 321 Senator Taylor moved that the bill be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 1. Without objection, the bill was returned to second reading. Senators Taylor, Ellis offered Amendment No. 1 : Page 1, lines 1 - 2: Delete "civil commitment of a criminal defendant who is found to be mentally incompetent" Insert "incompetency to stand trial" Page 1, lines 4 - 13: Delete all material and insert: "* Section 1. AS12.47.100 is repealed and reenacted to read: Sec. 12.47.100. INCOMPETENCY TO PROCEED. (a) A defendant who, as a result of mental disease or defect, is incompetent because the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against the defendant or to assist in the defendant's own defense may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of a crime so long as the incompetency exists. (b) If, before imposition of sentence, the prosecuting attorney or the attorney for the defendant has reasonable cause to believe that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect that causes the defendant to be unable to understand the proceedings or to assist in the person's own defense, the attorney may file a motion for a judicial determination of the competency of the defendant. Upon that motion, or upon its own motion, the court shall have the defendant examined by at least one qualified psychiatrist or psychologist, who shall report to the court concerning the competency of the defendant. For the purpose of the examination, the court may order the defendant committed for a reasonable period to a suitable hospital or other facility designated by the court. If the report of the psychiatrist or psychologist indicates that the defendant is incompetent, the court shall hold a hearing, upon due notice, at which evidence as to the competency of 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3265 SB 321 the defendant may be submitted, including that of the reporting psychiatrist or psychologist, and make appropriate findings. Before the hearing, the court shall, upon request of the prosecuting attorney, order the defendant to submit to an additional evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist designated by the prosecuting attorney. (c) A defendant is presumed to be competent. The party raising the issue of competency bears the burden of proving the defendant is incompetent by clear and convincing evidence. When the court raises the issue of competency, the burden of proving the defendant is incompetent shall be on the party who elects to advocate for a finding of competency. The court shall then apply the clear and convincing evidence standard to determine whether the defendant is competent. (d) A statement made by the defendant in the course of an examination into the person's competency under this section, whether the examination is with or without the consent of the defendant, may not be admitted in evidence against the defendant on the issue of guilt in a criminal proceeding unless the defendant later relies on a defense under AS12.47.010 or 12.47.020. A finding by the judge that the defendant is competent to stand trial in no way prejudices the defendant in a defense based on insanity; the finding may not be introduced in evidence on that issue or otherwise be brought to the notice of the jury. (e) In determining if the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against the defendant, the court shall consider, among other factors considered relevant by the court, whether the defendant understands that the defendant has been charged with a criminal offense and that penalties can be imposed; whether the defendant understands what criminal conduct is being alleged; whether the defendant understands the roles of the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense counsel; whether the defendant understands that the defendant will be expected to tell defense counsel the circumstances, to the best of the defendant's ability, surrounding the defendant's activities at the time of the alleged criminal conduct; and whether the defendant can distinguish between a guilty and not guilty plea. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3266 SB 321 (f) In determining if the defendant is unable to assist in the defendant's own defense, the court shall consider, among other factors considered relevant by the court, whether the defendant's mental disease or defect affects the defendant's ability to recall and relate facts pertaining to the defendant's actions at times relevant to the charges and whether the defendant can respond coherently to counsel's questions. A defendant is able to assist in the defense even though the defendant's memory may be impaired, the defendant refuses to accept a course of action that counsel or the court believes is the defendant's best interest, or the defendant is unable to suggest a particular strategy or to choose among alternative defenses. * Sec. 2. AS12.47.110(a) is amended to read: (a) When the trial court determines ªBY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCEß, in accordance with AS12.47.100, that a defendant is so ªMENTALLYß incompetent that the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against the defendant or ªPROPERLYß to assist in the defendant's own defense, the court shall order the proceedings stayed, except as provided in (d) of this section, and may commit the defendant to the custody of the commissioner of health and social services or the commissioner's authorized representative for further evaluation and treatment until the defendant is mentally competent to stand trial, or until the pending charges against the defendant are disposed of according to law, but in no event longer than 90 days. * Sec. 3. AS12.47.130(3) is amended to read: (3) "mental disease or defect" means a disorder of thought or mood that substantially impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life; "mental disease or defect" also includes mental retardation, which means a significantly below average general intellectual functioning that impairs a person's ability to adapt to or cope with the 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3267 SB 321 ordinary demands of life; a person who has obtained a driver's license, has voted in an election, is able to maintain employment, or is competent to testify as a witness under the Alaska Rules of Evidence is considered to have sufficient intellectual functioning to adapt or cope with the ordinary demands of life. * Sec. 4. AS12.47.130 is amended by adding new paragraphs to read: (4) "assist in the defendant's own defense" means to consult with a lawyer while exercising a reasonable degree of rational functioning; (5) "incompetent" means a defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against the defendant or to assist in the defendant's own defense; (6) "understand the proceedings against the defendant" means that the defendant's elementary mental process is such that the defendant has a reasonably rational comprehension of the proceedings." Senator Taylor moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 1. Senator Rieger objected. The question being: Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted? The roll was taken with the following result: SB 321 Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 19 NAYS: 1 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Frank, Green, Halford, Hoffman, Kelly, Leman, Lincoln, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff Nays: Rieger and so, Amendment No. 1 was adopted. SENATE BILL NO. 321 am was automatically in third reading. Amendment No. 2 was not offered. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3268 SB 321 Senator Taylor moved that the bill be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 3. Without objection, the bill was returned to second reading. Senator Taylor offered Amendment No. 3 : On Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 6: Delete clear and convincing Insert a preponderance of Page 2, line 9: Delete clear and convincing Insert preponderance of the Page 3, line 7: Undelete By a preponderance of the evidence. Page 2, line 9: Delete competency Insert incompetency Senator Taylor moved and asked unanimous consent for the adoption of Amendment No. 3. Without objection, Amendment No. 3 was adopted. SENATE BILL NO. 321 am was automatically in third reading. Senator Rieger moved that the bill be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 4. Without objection, the bill was returned to second reading. Senator Rieger offered Amendment No. 4 : On Amendment No. 1: Page 3, lines 23-27: Delete all material Insert demands of life. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3269 SB 321 Senator Rieger moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 4. Senator Taylor objected. The question being: Shall Amendment No. 4 be adopted? The roll was taken with the following result: SB 321 am Second Reading Amendment No. 4 YEAS: 3 NAYS: 17 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Pearce, Rieger, Salo Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Frank, Green, Halford, Hoffman, Kelly, Leman, Lincoln, Miller, R.Phillips, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff and so, Amendment No. 4 failed. SENATE BILL NO. 321 am was automatically in third reading. The question to be reconsidered: Shall SENATE BILL NO. 321 am "An Act relating to incompetency to stand trial" pass the Senate? The roll was taken with the following result: SB 321 am Third Reading - On Reconsideration YEAS: 19 NAYS: 1 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Frank, Green, Halford, Hoffman, Kelly, Leman, Lincoln, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff Nays: Rieger and so, SENATE BILL NO. 321 am passed the Senate on reconsideration and was referred to the Secretary for engrossment.