Judiciary committee debates changes to competency and involuntary-commitment process; concerns raised about due process and capacity

The Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee heard competing testimony on SB 374, a bill that would revise competency-evaluation and involuntary-commitment procedures for defendants charged with the most serious offenses.

The legislative reviser summarized the bill as amendments to KSA 22-3303, KSA 22-3305 and the Care and Treatment Act definitions (KSA 59-2946). Among the changes, the reviser said SB 374 would remove some outpatient options for felony defendants and direct that commitment to the state security hospital or a state hospital be conducted on an inpatient basis for certain felony defendants; it would also require notification to the prosecuting attorney for the pending criminal proceeding, add required items for written petitions and evaluations, and set timing and review thresholds for further proceedings.

Proponents included county and district attorneys and the Kansas attorney general's criminal division. Todd Thompson of the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association said the bill closes a "loophole" that has led to people charged with rape or murder being released because courts lack options. Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe and the attorney general’s deputy criminal chief, Jessica Domi, emphasized restoring competency so defendants can be tried: Domi noted coordination with KDADS and urged a measured approach limited to higher felony levels.

Several speakers highlighted practical concerns. Scott Bruner of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services said the bill preserves mobile and outpatient competency services enacted earlier but warned that added steps might lengthen custody times or delay admissions because of limited state-hospital beds; he cited recent activity levels, noting community mental health centers performed hundreds of evaluations while Larned admitted far fewer patients. Chance Baron, an assistant public defender, raised the existing backlog at Larned (he cited an 11–13 month wait) and warned the bill could create loops of repeated competency submissions that further delay care and courtroom resolution.

Opponents included the Disability Rights Center of Kansas. Attorney Cassius Anderson said the bill risks expanding involuntary commitment, imposes additional institutionalization pressures and could allow prosecutors to introduce propensity evidence inappropriately; he argued the change threatens due process and the civil-rights protections of people with disabilities.

In committee questioning, Senator Clays asked how the bill would "deem" dangerousness based on the charge, why the hearing standard uses preponderance of the evidence rather than clear-and-convincing proof, and whether the bill risks indefinite detention in light of Jackson v. Indiana. Deputy AG Jessica Domi and KCDA counsel Aaron Breidenbach responded: Domi said the statute contemplates presenting evidence about the crime in a preliminary fashion and pointed to built-in 90-day and six-month review points; Breidenbach said the sponsors would accept a clear-and-convincing standard for the compelling-state-interest hearing as the bill is worked.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 374 without a vote. Members will have the opportunity to work the bill at a later meeting, where sponsors and opponents can negotiate textual changes, including the evidentiary standard and procedural safeguards.

Next steps: the bill remains at the committee stage; sponsors signaled openness to clarifying the evidentiary standard and to consider procedural limits and resource implications before any committee recommendation.