Opinion ID: 1297518
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Applicable Competency Standard for Execution

Text: The pivotal issue in this case is whether the PCR court erred in adopting the A.B.A. Standard of incompetency rather than the standard set forth in Justice Powell's concurrence in Ford. The Respondent relies on the A.B.A. Standard which is set forth in the Criminal Justice Mental Health Standard 7-5.6, as: a. Convicts who have been sentenced to death should not be executed if they are currently mentally incompetent. If it is determined that condemned convict is currently mentally incompetent, execution should be stayed. b. A convict is incompetent to be executed if, as a result of mental illness or mental retardation, the convict cannot understand the nature of the pending proceedings, what he or she was tried for, the reason for the punishment or the nature of the punishment. A convict is also incompetent if, as a result of mental illness or retardation, the convict lacks sufficient capacity to recognize or understand any fact which might exist which would make the punishment unjust or unlawful, or lacks the ability to convey such information to counsel or the court. Id. This A.B.A. Standard sets forth a twopronged test when inquiring into the competency of a defendant subject to execution. The first prong can be characterized as the cognitive prong, which is defined as the ability to recognize the nature of the punishment and the reason for the punishment. The second prong is characterized as the assistance prong, which is defined as the ability to assist counsel, or the court, in identifying exculpatory or mitigating information. In Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (Powell, concurring), the United States Supreme Court in a plurality opinion held that the execution of an inmate who becomes incompetent or insane after conviction and sentencing is violative of the Eighth Amendment. The plurality did not, however, set forth what standard was applicable in the determination of incompetence or insanity. Justice Powell, the swing vote in the opinion, proposed such a standard when he stated in his concurrence that, I would hold that the Eighth Amendment forbids the execution only of those who are unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it. Id. at 422, 106 S.Ct. at 2608, 91 L.Ed.2d at 354. Justice Powell was a voice of one, yet the standard he posited was embraced by some courts as the constitutional minimum. Johnson v. Cabana, 818 F.2d 333 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1061, 107 S.Ct. 2207, 95 L.Ed.2d 861 (1987). [1] The A.B.A. Standard reflects the Powell formulation in the cognitive prong of its test. Justice Powell in his concurrence discussed the rationale behind the Eighth Amendment prohibition of executing the insane. [T]oday as at common law, one of the death penalty's critical justifications, its retributive force, depends on the defendant's awareness of the penalties existence and purpose. Thus, it remains true that executions of the insane both impose a uniquely cruel penalty and are inconsistent with one of the chief purposes of executions generally..... .... A number of States have more rigorous standards, but none disputes the need to require that those who are executed know the fact of their impending execution and the reason for it. Id. 477 U.S. at 421-422, 106 S.Ct. at 2607-2608, 91 L.Ed.2d at 354.