In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Clinical liaison" means a mental health expert or another individual who has experience and training in mental health or developmental disabilities and who is qualified and appointed by the court to aid in coordinating the treatment or training of juveniles who are found incompetent to stand trial. If developmental disability is an issue, the clinical liaison shall be an expert in developmental disability.
2. "Incompetent" means a juvenile who does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the juvenile's lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or who does not have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against the juvenile. Age alone does not render a person incompetent.
3. "Juvenile" means a person who is under eighteen years of age at the time the issue of competency is raised.
4. "Mental health expert" means a physician who is licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13 or 17 or a psychologist who is licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 19.1 and who is all of the following:
(a) Familiar with this state's competency standards and statutes.
(b) Familiar with the treatment, training and restoration programs that are available in this state.
(c) Certified by the court as meeting court developed guidelines.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case:
In Re Hyrum H., 131 P.3d 1058 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Hyrum H., 131 P.3d 1058 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 9× “Additionally, we review de novo whether the juvenile court correctly interpreted the juvenile competency statute, A.R.S. § 8-291(2). Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.”
In Re Eddie O., 253 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” AR.S. § 8-291(2). ¶ 7 If the court determines the juvenile is competent, the proceedings continue without delay.”
In Re Charles B., 978 P.2d 659 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 8-291(1) (Supp.1997). Thus, while the Juvenile falls under the statute, the law lacks specific provisions to deal with the problem this case presents.”
In Re Eric W., 271 P.3d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Although the applicable statutes limited the time that Juvenile was required to participate in the restoration program in an effort to gain competency, nothing in the plain wording of the juvenile competency statutes required the court to hold the final restoration review…”
E v. v. Hon. Abrams (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “Arizona’s juvenile competency statutes span from A.R.S. §§ 8-291 through 8-291.11. A juvenile is incompetent if the juvenile “does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the juvenile’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or who does not have a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-291(1) — 1 case
In Re Charles B., 978 P.2d 659 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“A.R.S. § 8-291(1) (Supp.1997). Thus, while the Juvenile falls under the statute, the law lacks specific provisions to deal with the problem this case presents.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-291(2) — 5 cases
In Re Hyrum H., 131 P.3d 1058 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Additionally, we review de novo whether the juvenile court correctly interpreted the juvenile competency statute, A.R.S. § 8-291(2). Linda V. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.”
In Re Eddie O., 253 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“” AR.S. § 8-291(2). ¶ 7 If the court determines the juvenile is competent, the proceedings continue without delay.”
In Re Eric W., 271 P.3d 486 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“Although the applicable statutes limited the time that Juvenile was required to participate in the restoration program in an effort to gain competency, nothing in the plain wording of the juvenile competency statutes required the court to hold the final restoration review…”
E v. v. Hon. Abrams (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“Arizona’s juvenile competency statutes span from A.R.S. §§ 8-291 through 8-291.11. A juvenile is incompetent if the juvenile “does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the juvenile’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or who does not have a…”
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.