Capacity, Commitment, and COVID-19

The capacity-commitment process in criminal cases is complicated. It involves many moving parts in two different systems: criminal justice and mental health. How is the process bearing up in the COVID-19 era? Based on my conversations with the experts—lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals involved in these cases—the answer is surprisingly well. This post considers the various steps in the process and focuses on a concern common to many court proceedings these days: when does the defendant need to be present, in person or remotely? First, a brief review of the process and the law on a defendant’s right to be present. The capacity-commitment process in North Carolina often begins with an evaluation, conducted by mental health professionals on order of a criminal court judge, about a defendant’s capacity to defend against the pending criminal charges. G.S. 15A-1002(a). Following the evaluation, if the defendant is incapable of proceeding, the criminal court judge determines whether involuntary commitment is appropriate. G.S. 15A-1003(a). If the judge finds commitment appropriate, a commitment case begins against the defendant. The commitment proceedings are governed by the requirements of G.S. Chapter 122C and can result in commitment of the defendant to a state hospital. Unless the prosecutor or criminal court judge dismisses the criminal case, the criminal case remains pending; it is merely on hold while the defendant is incapable of defending against the criminal charges. The criminal case may resume if the criminal court judge determines that the defendant has gained capacity, again based largely on the [...]