Insanity and Competency in PA Law

When is a witness or a criminal defendant determined to be incompetent under Pennsylvania Law? What are some differences between competency and the insanity defense? 

An Incompetent Defendant

In Pennsylvania, a criminal defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial, and the burden is on the defendant to prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. The law and society do not wish to criminal punish people who were incapable of understanding the wrongness of their acts.

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 631 Pa. 1; Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 597 Pa. 307. The specific criteria for determining incompetence are whether the defendant is (1) substantially unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings against them or (2) to participate and assist in their defense.  Commonwealth v. Fetzner, 372 Pa. Super. 469. This standard is codified in Title 50 § 7402 of Pennsylvania Law.

To be deemed competent, the defendant must have the ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and must have both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 631 Pa. 1. The focus is on the defendant's mental capacity to understand the proceedings and to participate in their defense. Id.

The determination of a defendant's competency to stand trial rests within the discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v. Tizer, 454 Pa. Super. 1. The court may order an incompetency examination at any stage in the proceedings, and a hearing is required if the examination is objected to by the defendant or their counsel per § 7402. The final decision on competency is based on sufficient evidence of the defendant's mental state, and the court must undertake a careful and complete inquiry before deciding. Commonwealth v. Fetzner, 372 Pa. Super. 469.

Witness Competency to Testify

How about witnesses? What about a witness who clearly may not be able to understand what is going on, or testify about it (such as children and the elderly)?

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 601 outlines the general rule of competency for witnesses in legal proceedings within the Commonwealth. It states that every person is presumed competent to be a witness (testify) unless otherwise provided by statute or the rules of evidence. The rule also specifies conditions under which a person may be deemed incompetent to testify due to mental condition or immaturity.

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 601(a) states that every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided by statute or in these rules. Rule 601(b) specifies that a person is incompetent to testify if the court finds that, because of a mental condition or immaturity, the person: (1) is, or was, at any relevant time, incapable of perceiving accurately; (2) is unable to express himself or herself so as to be understood either directly or through an interpreter; (3) has an impaired memory; or (4) does not sufficiently understand the duty to tell the truth.

There are some nuances in the law surrounding competency, such as the Tender Years Hearsay Act, which may allow immature witnesses to nonetheless offer testimony through hearsay evidence. In Commonwealth v. Walter, 625 Pa. 522, the court discussed the interaction between the Tender Years Hearsay Act (TYHA) and Pa.R.E. 601(b), concluding that a determination of unavailability under the TYHA is not a substitute for the requisite evaluation and finding of competence under Pa.R.E. 601.

In Carpenter v. Pleasant, 759 A.2d 411, the court emphasized that every person is competent to be a witness unless otherwise provided by statute or the Rules of Evidence, and highlighted the necessity for a witness to have personal knowledge of the matter to testify. Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 578 Pa. 641 discussed the necessity of a competency hearing for child witnesses and the specific criteria under Pa.R.E. 601(b) for determining competency.

Insanity Defense

How does the insanity defense factor into a competency analysis?

The insanity defense in Pennsylvania is governed by the M'Naghten rule, which is codified in Section 315. Under this rule, a defendant is considered legally insane if, at the time of the commission of the act, they were laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or if they did know it, that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Commonwealth v. Roberts, 496 Pa. 428.

Additionally, Pennsylvania law distinguishes between a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "guilty but mentally ill." A defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is acquitted and may be committed to a mental institution. In contrast, a defendant found guilty but mentally ill is subject to any appropriate sentence but will be placed in a mental institution until they are deemed well enough to be transferred to a correctional facility. Commonwealth v. Rabold, 597 Pa. 344.

The burden of proving insanity lies with the defendant, and the Commonwealth can rebut this defense with evidence, including lay testimony, to show that the defendant knew the nature and quality of their act and that it was wrong.