House Judiciary Committee weighs changes to S193 on competency restoration and victim notification

The House Judiciary Committee on April 22 continued consideration of S193, a bill that would set procedures for forensic-facility evaluations and competency restoration.

Jared Bianke, who joined the meeting by Zoom, told lawmakers the draft "looks to bring the victim's voice into the fold" and said the changes that do so were "strong and appropriate." He and other witnesses urged the committee to add language modeled on federal law to define when a defendant is "restorable to competency." Bianke said the recommended definition would describe a "substantial probability that in the foreseeable future the person will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward." (Bianke indicated he would send suggested statutory language drawn from the federal statute.)

Bianke and monitoring officials recommended that the bill require courts, when a defendant is found competent, to order the defendant returned to whatever custodial status the person held before admission to the forensic facility (for example, a hold without bail) rather than merely notifying parties. "The court orders the release of this person from the forensic facility and that they should be restored to whatever status they had before they were remanded into that facility," said Dominica Padulla, chief of the criminal division for the Monitoring General's Office.

Lawmakers and witnesses also debated the timing and mechanics of restoration reviews. The draft sets routine reviews every six months; some committee members said other states often require judicial review within 30–90 days. Supporters of the six-month window argued the period is reasonable for the narrow population covered, that expedited determinations can be problematic without fuller clinical assessments, and that the bill already allows continuances for good cause.

The committee discussed who may make early determinations that a person is not restorable. Members asked whether a forensic facility clinical services director could determine non-restorability before a six-month review. Witnesses cautioned against an overly hasty cut-off, saying early determinations could foreclose treatment and a structured forensic assessment that the facility is designed to provide.

The draft contemplates a statewide contract to provide evaluations and a separate facility-based forensic risk assessment. Bianke and others recommended mirroring existing statutory language (referenced in the transcript as statute 44815) so parties can seek their own independent evaluations of the forensic risk assessment and restorability determination, as parties may already obtain competing competency evaluations in other contexts.

Committee members asked about timing for disclosure and whether contracted evaluators must testify. The bill includes a provision allowing video testimony, which witnesses said would ease participation by subcontracted evaluators. Bianke said courts could continue hearings if an evaluation or disclosure arrives too close to a scheduled hearing.

Padulla urged that the bill explicitly provide for periodic hearings for people judged not restorable, including those subject to conditions outside the facility. She also pressed for explicit victim-notification language so victims can be informed of a defendant's status and be able to comment to the court at hearings, including in some misdemeanor dismissal proceedings where a judge must decide whether dismissal is "contrary to the interest of justice." Padulla suggested mirroring victim-notification language already used elsewhere in statute and said she would send suggested language.

No formal votes were reported during the session. Committee leaders said they would incorporate the recommended edits into a new draft (version 3.1) and circulate suggested statutory language on definitions and victim-notification. The committee scheduled additional consideration and related agenda items for the following day.

The bill as discussed would alter who evaluates competency, set a federal-style restorability standard, require clearer procedures for release to pre-facility status, expand victim-notification and input at certain hearings, and create a contract structure intended to standardize evaluations.