13-754. Capital defendant prescreening evaluation for competency and sanity
A. If the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, unless the defendant objects, the court shall appoint a psychologist or psychiatrist licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 17 or 19.1 to conduct a prescreening evaluation to determine if reasonable grounds exist to conduct another examination to determine the following:
1. The defendant's competency to stand trial.
2. Whether the defendant was sane at the time the defendant allegedly committed the offense.
B. The court may appoint separate psychological experts to conduct each of the evaluations ordered pursuant to subsection A.
C. The court shall seal any psychological expert's report pursuant to this section, and the report shall only be available to the defendant. The report shall be released on the motion of any party if the defendant introduces the report in the present case, raises a mental health defense at trial or sentencing or is convicted of an offense in the present case and the sentence is final.
D. If the prescreening evaluation indicates that reasonable grounds exist to conduct another examination as prescribed by subsection A, the court shall treat the prescreening evaluation as a preliminary examination pursuant to rule 11.2(c) of the Arizona rules of criminal procedure and shall proceed in accordance with rule 11 of the Arizona rules of criminal procedure.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose, 297 P.3d 906 (Ariz. 2013).
· cites it 2× “¶ 28 After he was charged, Rose initially waived his right to have a mental health expert appointed pursuant to Rule 11 for a prescreening under A.R.S. § 13-754(A)(1). The issue of competency did not arise until almost two years later, after defense expert Dr.”
State v. Delahanty, 250 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 2× “¶ 7 When the State seeks the death penalty, A.R.S. § 13-754(A) provides that the superior court “shall appoint a psychologist or psychiatrist” to conduct a “prescreening evaluation” to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to order further examination of the defendant’s…”
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano, 410 P.3d 433 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-754 (authorizing a court, unless defendant objects, to order a competency exam in a capital case); A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-754(A) — 2 cases
State v. Delahanty, 250 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2011).
“¶ 7 When the State seeks the death penalty, A.R.S. § 13-754(A) provides that the superior court “shall appoint a psychologist or psychiatrist” to conduct a “prescreening evaluation” to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to order further examination of the defendant’s…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-754(A)(1) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Edward James Rose, 297 P.3d 906 (Ariz. 2013).
“¶ 28 After he was charged, Rose initially waived his right to have a mental health expert appointed pursuant to Rule 11 for a prescreening under A.R.S. § 13-754(A)(1). The issue of competency did not arise until almost two years later, after defense expert Dr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.