Rule 11.2. Examination of defendant's mental condition; demand for jury

Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 11. Incompetency and mental examinations.

Rule 11.2. Examination of defendant’s mental condition; demand for jury.

(a) MOTIONS.

(1)

Competency to Stand Trial. When a person charged with a crime is

before a circuit court, the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or the district

attorney may petition for, or the court on its own motion may order, an examination

to assist in the determination of the defendant’s present mental condition and

competency to stand trial.

(2)

Mental Condition at Time of Offense. If the defendant has timely

raised a defense of “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect” either by the

entry of a plea or by filing a pre-trial motion pursuant to Rule 15, the court on its

own motion may order, or the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or the district

attorney may move for an examination into the defendant’s mental condition at the

time of the offense.

(b) ADMISSIBILITY OF MENTAL EXAMINATIONS.

(1)

The results of examinations conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(1)

of this rule, Rule 11.3, or Rule 11.4 on the defendant’s mental competency to stand

trial shall not be admissible as evidence in a trial for the offense charged and shall

not prejudice the defendant in entering a plea of not guilty by reason of mental

disease or defect.

(2)

The results of mental examinations made pursuant to subsection

(a)(2) of this rule and the results of similar examinations regarding the defendant’s

mental condition at the time of the offense conducted pursuant to Rule 11.4 shall

be admissible in evidence on the issue of the defendant’s mental condition at the

time of the offense only if the defendant has not subsequently withdrawn his or her

plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect

tion

(a)(2) of this rule and the results of similar examinations regarding the defendant’s

mental condition at the time of the offense conducted pursuant to Rule 11.4 shall

be admissible in evidence on the issue of the defendant’s mental condition at the

time of the offense only if the defendant has not subsequently withdrawn his or her

plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Whether the examination

is conducted with or without the defendant’s consent, no statement made by the

defendant during the course of the examination, no testimony by an examining

psychiatrist or psychologist based upon such a statement, and no other evidence

directly derived from the defendant’s statement shall be admitted against the

defendant in any criminal proceeding, except on an issue respecting mental

condition on which the defendant has testified.

(c) GROUNDS FOR MOTIONS AND DEMAND FOR JURY. A motion filed pursuant to

this rule shall state facts upon which the mental examination is sought, and such a

motion filed by the defendant or the defendant’s attorney must include a written

demand for a jury in order to preserve the right to a jury in a subsequent

competency hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 11.6; see also Rule 11.6(b)(1)

and Rule 11.7(c).

[Amended 6-11-91; Amended 1-1-96.]

Committee Comments to Rule 11.2 as Amended Effective October 1, 1996

Those defendants as to whom the circuit court has jurisdiction to determine

competency to stand trial include: (1) a defendant who is before the court on appeal

for trial de novo on a misdemeanor charge or a charge of violating a municipal

ordinance; (2) a defendant charged with a misdemeanor or with violating a

municipal ordinance, who is within the court’s jurisdiction after an indictment has

been returned; and (3) a defendant charged with a felony within the court’s

jurisdiction

tand trial include: (1) a defendant who is before the court on appeal

for trial de novo on a misdemeanor charge or a charge of violating a municipal

ordinance; (2) a defendant charged with a misdemeanor or with violating a

municipal ordinance, who is within the court’s jurisdiction after an indictment has

been returned; and (3) a defendant charged with a felony within the court’s

jurisdiction.

Rule 11.2(a)(1) contemplates that a procedure to have the defendant’s

mental competency determined should be set in motion at the earliest practicable

date. Although the competency issue will generally be raised before a hearing on

the criminal allegations, in some instances the question will arise in the midst of a

trial or during the sentencing stage. Also implicit in the rule is the recognition that

it is the duty of the district attorney and the trial judge to make appropriate inquiry

concerning the mental responsibility of the accused and the accused’s mental

competency to waive and plead or to stand trial on the charges.

Ordering an examination pursuant to this rule shall not be viewed as a

perfunctory or ministerial act, but rather as a discretionary one, that should be

exercised only if the circuit court has reasonable cause to believe the defendant

may not be mentally competent. In exercising judicial discretion, the circuit judge

is authorized to deny the motion if there is no reasonable basis shown for

questioning or examining the defendant’s competency.

The provisions of subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Rule 11.2 are similar to

Rule 12.2, Fed.R.Crim.P. The motions made under subsection (a)(2) of this rule

may prompt an investigation into the defendant’s mental condition at the time of

the offense, whether or not the competency question is raised

if there is no reasonable basis shown for

questioning or examining the defendant’s competency.

The provisions of subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Rule 11.2 are similar to

Rule 12.2, Fed.R.Crim.P. The motions made under subsection (a)(2) of this rule

may prompt an investigation into the defendant’s mental condition at the time of

the offense, whether or not the competency question is raised. There is no

apparent reason why an examination to investigate competency cannot be

combined with an examination to investigate the defendant’s sanity at the time of

the offense, provided that the judicial order makes a clear distinction between the

two purposes for evaluation to ensure that the correct legal criteria are applied.

While the test for competency (the “understand and defend” test) is distinct, as a

matter of law, from the test for sanity at the time of the offense (the “distinguish

wrong” test), the reports prepared by the examining psychiatrist(s) and/or

psychologist(s) and their testimony will necessarily contain information having a

substantial bearing on both issues. Compare subsection (a)(2) with Ala.Code 1975,

§ 13A-3-1, regarding the “affirmative defense” of “insanity,” i.e., that the defendant,

“as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature

and quality or wrongfulness of his acts.”

Subsection (b)(1), which is similar to Rule 12.2(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., and 18

U.S.C. § 4241, makes it clear that the determination of the defendant’s competency

to stand trial is separate and distinct from the determination of his sanity at the time

of the offense. To ensure this factual distinction and to avoid any prejudice to the

defendant, the finding of the defendant’s competency to stand trial is specifically

made inadmissible in the trial for the offense charged

U.S.C. § 4241, makes it clear that the determination of the defendant’s competency

to stand trial is separate and distinct from the determination of his sanity at the time

of the offense. To ensure this factual distinction and to avoid any prejudice to the

defendant, the finding of the defendant’s competency to stand trial is specifically

made inadmissible in the trial for the offense charged.

Rule 11.2(c) requires that the factual basis in support of the requested

mental examination be included in the motions that are filed and that motions filed

by the defendant or the defendant’s attorney include a jury demand to preserve the

right to have the defendant’s competency to stand trial determined by a jury at a

competency hearing. If the competency issue is raised by the court or by motion

of the district attorney, the defendant, in order to have a jury trial on the issue, must

file a written demand for a jury trial within seven (7) days. Rule 11.6(b). Demand

for a jury to determine competency in subsequent hearings must be made pursuant

to Rule 11.7(c).