Opinion ID: 2621987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Determination of all competency issues by Department 5

Text: Fergusen argues that Nevada law does not authorize the Eighth Judicial District Court to delegate the adjudication of all competency matters to Department 5. Specifically, Fergusen contends that EDCR 1.33, which directs the chief judge for the district to assign judges to specialized terms as needed, does not specifically provide for the assignment of all competency matters to a particular district court judge. Further, Fergusen argues that while a master or judge may handle certain procedural competency matters under EDCR 1.48(k)(11), the ultimate competency determination must be made by the trial judge who has been assigned to adjudicate the case. The State responds that the Eighth Judicial District Court Rules permit the assignment of all competency determinations to a particular department. The State contends that because EDCR 1.30(b)(5) permits the chief judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court to make regular and special assignments for all judges within the district, the chief judge may assign all competency determinations to Department 5. The State further argues that the assignment of all competency determinations to Department 5 is lawful because EDCR 1.30(b)(15) allows the chief judge to reassign cases from one department to another department as convenience or necessity requires. Additionally, the State contends that NRS 3.025 and NRS 3.026 require the assignment and adjudication of competency matters in as uniform a manner as practicable. In Nevada, a chief judge is broadly authorized to carry out the district courts' inherent authority to ensure the orderly administration of judicial business. [5] We review the chief judge's exercise of this authority for abuse of discretion. [6] Pursuant to the Eighth Judicial District Court Rules, the chief judge has the general authority to [m]ake regular and special assignments of all judges. [7] Further, the chief judge must assign judges to specialized divisions of the court for 2-year terms as needed. [8] However, EDCR 1.33 does not specifically provide for a division specialized in competency matters. Regarding cases, the chief judge has the authority to assign or reassign all cases pending in the district. [9] Further, [u]nless objected to by one of the judges concerned, criminal cases, writs or motions may be consolidated or reassigned to any criminal department for trial, settlement or other resolution. [10] We conclude that under EDCR 1.30(b)(5), 1.60(a), and 3.10(b), the chief judge of the Eighth Judicial District has the discretion to assign the determination of all competency matters to Department 5. While EDCR 1.33 does not explicitly provide for a specialized competency court division, it does not limit the chief judge's authority under EDCR 1.30(b)(5), 1.60(a), and 3.10(b). However, the determination of a defendant's ongoing competency during trial must vest with the trial judge who has been assigned to hear the matter. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that evidence of a defendant's irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are relevant factors in assessing competency. [11] Thus, any assignment of a competency determination to a different competency judge during trial would violate the United States Supreme Court's holding in Drope v. Missouri because a trial judge is the only adjudicator who can, among other things, assess firsthand a defendant's present ability to consult with his or her lawyer and determine whether a defendant's present behavior and demeanor during trial demonstrate that he or she is not competent to stand trial. [12] Accordingly, we conclude that while the Eighth Judicial District Court may assign all initial competency determinations (NRS 178.415 and NRS 178.455) to a particular department within the district, the determination of a defendant's ongoing competency thereafter and during trial must vest with the trial judge who has been assigned to hear the matter. [13]