The Legal Difference Between Two Seemingly Synonymous Terms
The terms incompetence and insanity have seemingly similar meanings and are used somewhat interchangeably in typical, every day life. However, these two terms have drastically different meanings within the world of criminal law, but both impact a person’s ability to stand trial.
What is Incompetency?
When determining if one is either competent or incompetent, we look at the individual in present time, not back to the time when the alleged crime was committed. Questions of competence evaluate whether the accused has the ability, at the time of trial, to understand what they are charged with, the legal proceedings to follow, and if they are able to assist in their attorney with their defense. Ellis v. State, 1992 OK CR 45, 867 P.2d 1289 (1992); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.1 (1981). In Oklahoma, there is a two-part test to determine if someone is competent to stand trial; (1) “[a] sufficient present ability to consult with the [their] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and (2) “a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against [them] is shown.” Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 116 S. Ct. 1373 (1996).
If there is a concern about a person’s competency, an Application for Determination of Competency must be filed, and a hearing will be held. At this hearing, if any doubt is raised regarding the person’s competence, the individual will be ordered to undergo an examination by a mental health expert. Okl. Stat., tit. 22, § 1175.3(B-D). After the evaluation is complete a report will be provided to all parties and the court. If the person, or their representative, requests a jury trial the report, testimony, and evidence will be presented during a trial to six (6) jurors who will decide if the person is competent or not, and if they are not, the individual cannot stand trial.
What is Insanity?
On the flip side, a legal evaluation of sanity looks into the mental state the accused was in at the time the alleged crime occurred. The question of sanity is whether the accused was capable of knowing the wrongfulness of his acts when they were committed. Ellis, 867 P.2d 1289; Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 152(4) (1981). Unlike a determination of competency, there is no hearing or special trial to determine insanity. The person must assert the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity during their criminal trial. The sanity of the person, at the time of the commission of the crime, is determined by the jury after all of the testimony and evidence has concluded. The determination will be based on whether the person was mentally ill at the time of the commission of the acts or omissions that constitute the crime, and was either unable to understand the nature and consequences of his or her actions or was unable to differentiate right from wrong, and has not been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder which substantially contributed to the act for which the person has been charged. OUJI-CR 8-31. If the jury decides unanimously that to be true, then the person is found not guilty, but is taken into the custody of the State for treatment until such time as the person is not a danger to themselves or others, and there is a plan in place to insure on-going treatment and medication if necessary.
Author: Skylar Bell
Brought to you by: Boeheim Freeman Law