Opinion ID: 2344601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Role of the Court

Text: Under § 3-8A-17.1(a), if a competency issue has been generated, the circuit court must first make two determinations, (1) whether there is probable cause to believe that the child has committed the delinquent act and (2) whether there is reason to believe that the child may be incompetent to proceed[.] If the court finds that those factors are present, the court does not proceed to determine competence; rather, it shall stay all proceedings and order an evaluation of the child's mental condition[.] Next, [t]he court shall set and may change the conditions under which the examination is to be conducted. § 3-8A-17.2. The examination is to be conducted by a qualified expert, who is to opine on competence. § 3-8A-17.3(a)(1). [7] Here, the State had ample evidence to demonstrate probable cause that Lakeshia had committed the assault, although that evidence was introduced as part of the adjudicatory hearing. The court, however, never made a determination whether there was reason to believe that Lakeshia may be incompetent to proceed. Defense counsel's representation that Lakeshia did not understand his role, or that of the prosecutor, and that she suffered from the highest level of bi-polar disorder were sufficient to draw into question the presumption of competence, to require an inquiry by the court, and to require a finding on whether there was reason to believe that Lakeshia may be incompetent to proceed. What seems to have happened here is that the trial court focused on getting Lakeshia, as promptly as possible, to the then available bed at the Finan Center, resulting in a violation of the new legislation. [8] Because the circuit court proceeded to an adjudication after competency had been raised, but without determining whether there was reason to believe that Lakeshia may be incompetent, we vacate the judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. [9] JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY WASHINGTON COUNTY.