Committee hears bill to require restoration treatment and court-ordered risk assessments in certain competency cases

The Nevada Assembly Committee on Judiciary on Monday heard Assembly Bill 550, a measure that would change procedures under NRS 178.461 by requiring restoration treatment before a defendant can be found incompetent to proceed in certain serious felonies and by requiring courts — rather than prosecutors — to order comprehensive risk assessments to determine whether long-term inpatient forensic care is necessary.

Proponents said the changes aim to reduce delays and ensure defendants receive treatment before being subject to long-term commitments. "Given the possible 10 year commitment to the division, it seems reasonable to at least attempt to bring a defendant to competency," said Drew Cross, state forensic program director, during the bill presentation. Cross and Dr. Rhonda Dillinger, deputy administrator of clinical services, described cases in which the division performed risk assessments for people who never received restorative care and said the bill would provide defendants the opportunity to address charges through treatment.

Defense representatives urged narrower language and proposed amendments to avoid unintended consequences. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office said her office submitted a proposed amendment focused on section 1; she described the need to clarify that the statute should reflect that restorative treatment was attempted but not successful, rather than implying the defendant became competent. "We're working on the language to show that someone tried to be treated to competency, but we're not able to be treated to competency," Knott said.

Paloma Guerrero, representing the Clark County Public Defender's Office, described current practice: when doctors find an individual is not a danger, the case is closed and the person is released. She expressed concern about creating a rebuttable presumption that could give prosecutors an opportunity to rebut a finding that inpatient care is not necessary, and she asked for a specific judicial timetable so court orders do not "languish." John Jones of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said the association was opposed under committee rules but that it understood the bill's intent and had been negotiating with agency staff.

The bill would (1) require a defendant to receive restoration treatment prior to being found incompetent to proceed for certain serious charges; (2) require that risk assessments be ordered by the court rather than initiated solely by a district attorney filing; and (3) create a rebuttable presumption that a person who does not require inpatient care need not be placed at a secure forensic facility. Cross said the court-ordered approach would likely streamline communication because courts routinely send orders to the division when ordering restoration treatment.

No committee vote was taken. Cross told the committee the agency and defense offices were continuing to negotiate language: "We are currently collaborating with our PD NDAs and believe we can reach consensus on AB 5 50." The hearing was opened and closed without formal action recorded on the bill.

Background: NRS 178.461 currently allows up to a 10-year commitment at a secure forensic facility for individuals found incompetent with no substantial probability of becoming competent in the foreseeable future for certain felonies. Testimony at the hearing emphasized both the seriousness of potential long-term commitments and the administrative delays that can follow when risk assessments are not ordered promptly.

What’s next: The bill remains under committee consideration; sponsors and stakeholders signaled continued negotiations and proposed amendments, and no vote was held during the hearing.