House committee advances overhaul of criminal competency process; expands evaluations and outpatient restoration options

House Judiciary Committee members on Friday debated and amended House Bill 4, a bipartisan proposal to revise how the criminal justice system evaluates and responds to defendants with serious mental illness.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Chandler and carried in committee by staff member Megan Dorsey, expands competency evaluations to include a review of whether a defendant might qualify for civil commitment or assisted outpatient treatment, creates a pathway for community‑based outpatient competency restoration for defendants judged not dangerous and charged with lower‑level offenses, and clarifies the list of predicate crimes that can trigger criminal commitment.

Committee chair Representative Chandler said the bill tackles a long‑standing gap: “It really is just bringing them to a place where they can be tried.” The bill also allows prosecutors to seek assisted outpatient treatment; as Chandler noted, “The prosecutor may now be an AOT petitioner, which is not current law.”

Why it matters

Supporters described the changes as an attempt to reduce the revolving door of repeated dismissals and reoffending while providing treatment options that currently don’t exist statewide. Rep. Renaya, who spoke about family experience with the competency system, said the bill’s promise is in giving families a route to treatment: “When he gets treatment, she said he's back to being my little boy.”

What the bill does

- Expands the competency evaluation so that, when a defendant is found not competent, the evaluator also assesses whether the person might qualify for civil commitment or assisted outpatient treatment (AOT). - Adds inpatient and outpatient restoration options for defendants found incompetent but not dangerous; the bill specifies that community programs must be court‑approved and be offered in the defendant’s community when available. - Broadens the list of predicate crimes (explicitly adding first‑ and second‑degree murder in several places) that may permit criminal commitment when a defendant is found not restorable and dangerous. - Reduces the number of full evaluations required during restoration, replacing an interim full evaluation with a shorter progress report to conserve evaluator resources and conform process timelines to existing civil commitment rules.

Public comment and concerns

Advocacy groups, clinicians and prosecutors largely supported the bill’s goals but urged caution about implementation. Ellen Hines of the Disability Coalition and Kim Chavez Cook with the public defender’s office both said outpatient programs do not yet exist statewide and urged stronger diversion and voluntary‑treatment pathways. NAMI New Mexico warned involuntary commitment should remain a last resort.

Law enforcement and prosecutors who testified described high caseloads and repeated dismissals. Las Cruces Police Chief Jeremy Storie said the court data show numerous dismissed charges tied to a small group of people and argued judges and prosecutors need more options to secure treatment and public safety: “The population that's not being addressed right now are those that have numerous crimes that we cannot address because they get dismissed.”

Committee action and next steps

The committee adopted a multi‑section amendment (amendment 230399.1) that made technical wording changes, inserted explicit references to murder in predicate lists, required court‑approved community restoration programs, and clarified timelines so expanded evaluations do not produce stale evidence for civil proceedings. The amendment was moved by Rep. Haakman Vigil and seconded by Leader Sapanski and was adopted by voice/roll call in committee. After debate, the committee rolled HB 4 into a broader public‑safety package for combined consideration on a later floor day.

What remains unsettled

Speakers across the hearing emphasized that statewide outpatient restoration programs don’t yet exist; committee sponsors said they plan to coordinate the bill’s statutory changes with separate budget and behavioral‑health funding measures to build capacity. Officials also noted open questions about timelines for using expanded evaluations in civil proceedings and the need to preserve due process protections for defendants.

Ending

The committee framed HB 4 as a multi‑part effort to give courts more treatment options and to close gaps that leave non‑dangerous defendants released without services. Sponsors and many witnesses said the statute will require funding and program development to deliver the promised community restoration options.