Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-309 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Amnesia as Affecting Defendant's Competency to Stand Trial. 100 A.L.R.6th 535 (2014).

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

The action of the trial court in resolving the question as to defendant's fitness to stand trial was proper and this section in making the issue a question of law does not in any way violate Ark. Const., Art. 7, § 23 which requires issues of law to be determined by the court and matters of fact to be resolved by the jury. Rogers v. State, 264 Ark. 258, 570 S.W.2d 268 (1978).

Appeal.

On appeal, the court will affirm where there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings concerning a defendant's fitness to proceed. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion of reasonable and material certainty. Addison v. State, 298 Ark. 1, 765 S.W.2d 566 (1989), overruled, State v. Bell, 329 Ark. 422, 948 S.W.2d 557 (1997).

Duty to Decide Fitness.

Where, testimony of experts differed as to the defendant's capability of assisting in his defense and understanding the nature and extent of his actions, the trial court should have made a determination of defendant's mental condition and whether or not he was competent to proceed to trial. Westbrook v. State, 265 Ark. 736, 580 S.W.2d 702 (1979).

It was the duty of the court to make a determination of the issue of the defendant's fitness to proceed with the trial, either on the report of the Arkansas State Hospital or after a hearing on that issue; and it was reversible error for the trial judge to leave the matter to the jury to decide. Gruzen v. State, 267 Ark. 380, 591 S.W.2d 342 (1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 852, 101 S. Ct. 144, 66 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1980); Gruzen v. Arkansas, 459 U.S. 1020, 103 S. Ct. 386, 74 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1982).

It is the duty of the trial court to make a determination of a defendant's fitness to proceed to trial when it becomes an issue, and it is reversible error to leave the matter for the jury's determination. Lipscomb v. State, 271 Ark. 337, 609 S.W.2d 15 (1980); Robertson v. State, 298 Ark. 131, 765 S.W.2d 936 (1989).

Where psychiatrist's report raises a reasonable doubt about defendant's competency to stand trial, the trial court should order a full examination and report pursuant to § 5-2-305(c) and, if warranted by the report, should conduct a determination of fitness to proceed pursuant to this section. Jacobs v. State, 294 Ark. 551, 744 S.W.2d 728 (1988).

Where the trial court's inquiry into the defendant's competency consisted of: no witnesses; the only medical report was a one paragraph letter from the mental health center; and the trial court's questioning was very limited, the hearing did not comply with due process. Griffin v. Lockhart, 935 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1991).

Where three doctors, in a collective opinion, were unable to arrive at a consensus on whether the defendant was competent, and, therefore, recommended further evaluation, there was a sufficient doubt raised about defendant's competency for trial. Griffin v. Lockhart, 935 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1991).

Trial court committed reversible error by failing to immediately suspend the proceedings in defendant's trial for first degree murder and order a psychiatric evaluation upon defendant's motion requesting that an evaluation be done. Kelly v. State, 80 Ark. App. 126, 91 S.W.3d 526 (2002).

Although defendant raised the issue of his lack of capacity at the time of the alleged offenses due to mental disease or defect, as well as the issue of his mental retardation for purposes of applying the death penalty, these were two issues separate and distinct from the issue of capacity to stand trial. Because defendant's competency to stand trial was never in dispute, and because defendant acknowledged his competency at trial, the trial court did not err in failing to rule on defendant's competency. Miller v. State, 2010 Ark. 1, 362 S.W.3d 264 (2010), rehearing denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2010 Ark. LEXIS 95 (Feb. 12, 2010).

Hearing.

Evidence sufficient to find that there was no prejudicial error in the conduct of the competency hearing. Wright v. State, 270 Ark. 78, 603 S.W.2d 408 (1980).

Where there was no indication in the record that the defendant contested the competency finding, the trial court was not required to hold a hearing on the issue. Mask v. State, 314 Ark. 25, 869 S.W.2d 1 (1993).

A court must hold a hearing on fitness if the report filed under this section is contested. Greene v. State, 335 Ark. 1, 977 S.W.2d 192 (1998).

Trial court was not obligated to hold a hearing on the issue of competency to stand trial where two mental evaluations concluded that defendant was fit to stand trial and was not impaired by mental defect, and the findings were not contested by either party. Weston v. State, 366 Ark. 265, 234 S.W.3d 848 (2006).

In a probation revocation case, a trial court did not err by failing to hold a hearing on defendant's competency or suspend the proceedings and order a mental evaluation because a doctor's findings were not challenged. Even if counsel's statements to the trial court were viewed as a motion for a second evaluation, there was no ruling from the trial court on this issue, which precluded appellate review. Singleton v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 165 (2014).

Trial court erred in denying defendant's request for a competency hearing because a hearing was mandatory where defendant plainly took issue with a psychologist's finding that he was competent and requested a hearing. Simpson v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 103, 455 S.W.3d 856 (2015).

Motions.

Where defense counsel requested a psychiatric examination of the defendant, and the psychiatrist's report stated defendant was fit to stand trial, the court was not required to make further findings in the absence of a defense motion and if the defense's original request was intended as such a motion as well, it was obligated to obtain a ruling on the motion. McClellan v. State, 264 Ark. 223, 570 S.W.2d 278 (1978).

A pretrial motion for a psychiatric examination for a criminal defendant was not sufficient to raise the requisite reasonable or bona fide doubt necessary for the trial judge to make a finding of the defendant's incompetency to stand trial. Collins v. Housewright, 664 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1004, 102 S. Ct. 1639, 71 L. Ed. 2d 872 (1982).

Court did not err in denying a motion for an independent mental evaluation or for failing to hold a mental competency hearing where a mental evaluation had been performed on defendant at his request, a hearing to determine fitness to proceed was also held, and defendant presented no evidence to cast doubt on his fitness to proceed. Avery v. State, 93 Ark. App. 112, 217 S.W.3d 162 (2005).

Post-Conviction Hearing.

The trial court arguably should have ordered a competency hearing, irrespective of the psychiatrist's report finding the defendant competent, where there was evidence which may have cast doubt on the defendant's competency to stand trial; however, any error was rectified when the trial court held the post-conviction proceeding under ARCrP 37.1, at which time the defendant received a full and fair hearing on the issue of his competency. Campbell v. Lockhart, 789 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1986).

Although trial counsel's failure to request a competency hearing where there was a substantial doubt about the petitioner's competency may have constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, the failure of the defendant's trial counsel to pursue the issue of his competency did not violate his right to effective assistance of counsel where the defendant did receive a subsequent post-conviction hearing. Campbell v. Lockhart, 789 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1986).

Rebuttable Presumption.

There is a presumption of competence to stand trial, and the burden of proof of incompetence is on the defendant. Lipscomb v. State, 271 Ark. 337, 609 S.W.2d 15 (1980).

Test of Competence.

The test of competence to stand trial is whether an accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Lipscomb v. State, 271 Ark. 337, 609 S.W.2d 15 (1980); Lawrence v. State, 39 Ark. App. 39, 839 S.W.2d 10 (1992).

Amnesia or lack of memory is not an adequate ground for holding a defendant incompetent to stand trial. Lawrence v. State, 39 Ark. App. 39, 839 S.W.2d 10 (1992).