Ohio Senate approves emergency measure extending competency-restoration timeline in serious cases

The Ohio Senate on Nov. 10 passed Senate Bill 295 as an emergency measure to change how courts and hospitals handle competency restoration for defendants facing the most serious charges.

Sen. Manning, a sponsor who outlined the bill’s genesis in a Cuyahoga County case, said the measure would let courts “pause” the one-year restoration clock if a defendant refuses medication or otherwise fails to follow a treatment plan, and would require the treatment facility’s chief clinical officer to notify the court within 14 days of such a refusal. “We’re allowing tolling of the time,” Manning said on the floor.

Sen. Patton, a cosponsor, described the bill as a response to a case in which a defendant declined treatment and used that delay to risk dismissal of an aggravated-murder charge. Patton said the bill would extend the restoration period to up to five years in the most serious matters — a change he said is not mandatory but requires prosecutors to show the court they can restore competency within the extended window.

Several senators raised concerns before the vote. Sen. DeMora warned that making such changes retroactive could invite litigation and that extending the timeline could strain already limited psychiatric-bed capacity in state facilities. Sen. Hicks Hudson said she supported the bill’s notice provisions but expressed reluctance about the longer maximum restoration period and emphasized the need for additional treatment resources.

The chamber voted to retain the bill’s emergency clause and then to pass the measure; the clerk recorded 31 yeas and 0 nays on both votes. The bill will take effect immediately if signed, enabling requests for extended restoration timeframes and prompting hospitals to report medication refusals to courts within the new 14-day window.

The bill’s sponsors said the changes aim to prevent defendants from using refusal of treatment as a tactic to run out statutory timelines, while supporters argued the measures will help ensure serious cases can proceed to trial. Critics cautioned about retroactive application and the capacity of mental-health facilities; floor remarks recorded those concerns without indication that the bill’s text was changed during the session.

Next steps: the bill goes to the governor for signature; the measure was considered an emergency and will take effect on the date specified in its enactment if the governor signs it.