Judge orders KCPC evaluation for criminal responsibility in Thomas O'Donnell case; competency reserved until motion filed

Monroe Circuit Court instructed the parties in Commonwealth v. Thomas O'Donnell to have their defendant evaluated at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC) specifically for criminal responsibility and mitigation issues, while deferring any competency examination until a formal competency motion is filed.

Order and scope

Judge David William said the court would sign an order directing KCPC to evaluate O'Donnell “as far as responsibility” and for mitigation‑related issues, and that the evaluation should include the matters raised in an expert report the defense provided. The court explicitly directed that, “until the court receives [a competency] motion, he shall not be examined for the purpose of competency.”

Why the evaluation was requested

The Commonwealth notified the court that the defense had provided an expert report describing possible psychotic diagnoses and reserve the right to raise competency later. The prosecutor asked for KCPC review of all mental health issues, including competency and criminal responsibility, because the Commonwealth had not yet had the opportunity to examine the defendant and because there are many out‑of‑state witnesses (the prosecution identified about 65 potential witnesses, roughly 31 of whom live out of state) whose subpoenas would need domestication and careful scheduling.

Trial timing and logistics

Counsel discussed whether the October 27 trial date was realistic. KCPC outpatient evaluations could take roughly six months via Zoom and seven to nine months for in‑person evaluations, according to counsel’s representations; KCPC inpatient scheduling could also affect timing. The court suggested the parties aim for a January or February trial calendar if KCPC evaluation and potential mitigation or competency processes proceed. The judge offered to prepare an order for the evaluation and asked counsel to review it and propose agreed changes in writing where possible.

Outpatient versus inpatient evaluation

Defense and Commonwealth discussed whether the evaluation could be done on an outpatient basis where the defendant would be transported to KCPC for in‑person assessment or done via teleconference. Prosecutors and defense asked KCPC if outpatient evaluation was feasible to avoid unnecessary transportation; the court noted it sometimes lacks leverage to force in‑person assessments quickly but would attempt to expedite scheduling.

What the order directs next

The court will sign an order directing KCPC to evaluate O'Donnell for criminal responsibility and mitigation issues and to include other issues raised in the defense expert's report under those purposes. The court reserved competency assessment until the defense files a competency motion. Counsel were warned that any limitation on an evaluation’s scope could risk revealing defense strategy and that disclosure obligations and discovery timelines will factor into any scheduling changes.