Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-212 (2026)

Determination of fitness of defendant to proceed — Suspension of proceeding and commitment of defendant — Postcommitment hearing. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Determination of fitness of defendant to proceed — Suspension of proceeding and commitment of defendant — Postcommitment hearing. 

(1) When the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court. The court shall also determine, based on the examiner’s findings, whether the defendant lacks capacity to make informed decisions about treatment. If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to section 18-211, Idaho Code, the court may make the determination on the basis of such report. If the finding is contested, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue. If the report is received in evidence upon such hearing, the party who contests the finding thereof shall have the right to summon and to cross-examine the psychiatrist or licensed psychologist who submitted the report and to offer evidence upon the issue.

(2)  If the court determines that the defendant lacks fitness to proceed, the proceeding against him shall be suspended, except as provided in subsections (5) and (6) of this section, and the court shall commit him to the custody of the director of the department of health and welfare, for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days, for care and treatment at an appropriate facility of the department of health and welfare or, if the defendant is found to be dangerously mentally ill as defined in section 66-1305, Idaho Code, to the department of correction for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days. The order of commitment shall include the finding by the court whether the defendant lacks capacity to make informed decisions about treatment. For purposes of this section, "facility" shall mean a state hospital, institution, mental health center, or those facilities enumerated in subsection (8) of section 66-402, Idaho Code, equipped to evaluate or rehabilitate such defendants. The order of commitment shall require the county sheriff to transport the defendant to and from the facility and require an evaluation of the defendant’s mental condition at the time of admission to the facility and a progress report on the defendant’s mental condition. The progress report shall include an opinion whether the defendant is fit to proceed, or if not, whether there is a substantial probability the defendant will be fit to proceed within the foreseeable future. If the report concludes that there is a substantial probability that the defendant will be fit to proceed in the foreseeable future, the court may order the continued commitment of the defendant for an additional one hundred eighty (180) days. If at any time the director of the facility to which the defendant is committed determines that the defendant is fit to proceed, such determination shall be reported to the court.
(3)  If during a commitment under this section a defendant who has the capacity to make informed decisions about treatment refuses any and all treatment, or the only treatment available to restore competency for trial, the court shall, within seven (7) days, excluding weekends and holidays, of receiving notice of the defendant’s refusal from the facility, conduct a hearing on whether to order involuntary treatment or order such other terms and conditions as may be determined appropriate. The burden shall be on the state to demonstrate grounds for involuntary treatment including, but not limited to: the prescribed treatment is essential to restore the defendant’s competency, the medical necessity and appropriateness of the prescribed treatment, no less intrusive treatment alternative exists to render the defendant competent for trial, and other relevant information. If each of these findings is made by the court, treatment shall be ordered consistent with the findings.
(4)  Each report shall be filed with the clerk of the court, who shall cause copies to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant. Upon receipt of a report, the court shall determine, after a hearing if a hearing is requested, the disposition of the defendant and the proceedings against him. If the court determines that the defendant is fit to proceed, the proceeding shall be resumed. If at the end of the initial ninety (90) days the court determines that the defendant is unfit and there is not a substantial probability the defendant will be fit to proceed within the foreseeable future or if the defendant is not fit to proceed after the expiration of the additional one hundred eighty (180) days, involuntary commitment proceedings shall be instituted pursuant to either section 66-329 or 66-406, Idaho Code, in the court in which the criminal charge is pending.
(5)  In its review of commitments pursuant to section 66-337, Idaho Code, the department of health and welfare shall determine whether the defendant is fit to proceed with trial. The department of health and welfare shall review its commitments pursuant to chapter 4, title 66, Idaho Code, and may recommend that the defendant is fit to proceed with trial. If the district court which committed the defendant pursuant to section 66-406, Idaho Code, agrees with the department’s recommendation and finds the conditions which justified the order pursuant to section 66-406, Idaho Code, do not continue to exist, criminal proceedings may resume. If the defendant is fit to proceed, the court in which the criminal charge is pending shall be notified and the criminal proceedings may resume. If, however, the court is of the view that so much time has elapsed, excluding any time spent free from custody by reason of the escape of the defendant, since the commitment of the defendant that it would be unjust to resume the criminal proceeding, the court may dismiss the charge.
(6)  If a defendant escapes from custody during his confinement, the director shall immediately notify the court from which committed, the prosecuting attorney and the sheriff of the county from which committed. The court shall forthwith issue an order authorizing any health officer, peace officer, or the director of the institution from which the defendant escaped to take the defendant into custody and immediately return him to his place of confinement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: State v. Burke, 462 P.3d 599 (Idaho 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Burke, 462 P.3d 599 (Idaho 2020). · cites it 14× “I.C. § 18-212. The order of commitment issued by the court required the county sheriff to transport Burke to the facility.”
State v. Lovelace, 90 P.3d 278 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 6× “If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to section 18-211, Idaho Code, the court may make a determination on the basis of such report.”
State v. Harper, 922 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1996). · cites it 28× “Chuck Franklin Harper (Harper) appeals the district court’s: (1) denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; (2) denial of his request for a separate competency hearing pursuant to section 18-212 of the Idaho Code; and (3) failure to order a separate evaluation of his…”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 4× “On the basis of those evaluations Card was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed for treatment and evaluation for ninety days pursuant to I.C. § 18-212. During the course of treatment Card was found to be suffering from a type of paranoid schizophrenia and he…”
State v. Fuchs, 597 P.2d 227 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 4× “Appellant argues that I.C. § 18-212 (which states that when a defendant's fitness to proceed is drawn into question, the issue shall be determined by the court) requires a specific determination of competency.”
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 2× “— (a) A needy person who is being detained by a law enforcement officer, who is confined or is the subject of hospitalization proceedings pursuant to sections 18-212, 18-214, 66-322, 66-326, 66-329 or 66-409, Idaho Code, or who is under formal charge of having committed, or is…”
State v. Hayes, 69 P.3d 181 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 18-212 , which is the focus of Hayes’s argument, provides that “[w]hen the defendant’s fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the court.”
State v. Chilton, 736 P.2d 1277 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 14× “(c) "Involuntary patient" shall mean an individual committed pursuant to sections 18-212, 18-214, 66-329 or 66-1201, Idaho Code, or committed pursuant to section 16-1610 or 16-1814, Idaho Code, and admitted to a facility for the treatment of minors.”
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996). “2d 264, 266 (1996); Idaho Code §18-212 (1987); Kan. Stat. Ann.”
Takhsilov v. State, 389 P.3d 955 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 2× “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During the pendency of his underlying criminal case, Takhsilov was deemed incompetent to proceed and was transferred to Idaho State Hospital South pursuant to Idaho Code section 18-212. Three months later, he was found to have regained…”
State v. Hoffman, 660 P.2d 1353 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 20× “The motion was based on the ground that I.C. § 18-212 was unconstitutional in that the period of confinement of a defendant found unfit to proceed to trial is not limited to a period of time necessary to determine whether fitness may be attained in the foreseeable future.”
State v. Powers, 537 P.2d 1369 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 3× “Since we find appellant competent to stand trial, and capable of assisting in his own defense, I.C. § 18-212 is inapplicable. The test for determining competency was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Dusky v.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 18-212(1) — 2 cases
State v. Lovelace, 90 P.3d 278 (Idaho 2003). “If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to section 18-211, Idaho Code, the court may make a determination on the basis of such report.”
State v. Harper, 922 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1996). “Chuck Franklin Harper (Harper) appeals the district court’s: (1) denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; (2) denial of his request for a separate competency hearing pursuant to section 18-212 of the Idaho Code; and (3) failure to order a separate evaluation of his…”
— Idaho Code § 18-212(2) — 6 cases
State v. Burke, 462 P.3d 599 (Idaho 2020). “I.C. § 18-212. The order of commitment issued by the court required the county sheriff to transport Burke to the facility.”
State v. Lovelace, 90 P.3d 278 (Idaho 2003). “If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to section 18-211, Idaho Code, the court may make a determination on the basis of such report.”
State v. Hargis, 889 P.2d 1117 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Hoffman, 660 P.2d 1353 (Idaho 1983). “The motion was based on the ground that I.C. § 18-212 was unconstitutional in that the period of confinement of a defendant found unfit to proceed to trial is not limited to a period of time necessary to determine whether fitness may be attained in the foreseeable future.”
State v. Burke (Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 18-212(3) — 3 cases
State v. Burke, 462 P.3d 599 (Idaho 2020). “I.C. § 18-212. The order of commitment issued by the court required the county sheriff to transport Burke to the facility.”
State v. Chilton, 736 P.2d 1277 (Idaho 1987). “(c) "Involuntary patient" shall mean an individual committed pursuant to sections 18-212, 18-214, 66-329 or 66-1201, Idaho Code, or committed pursuant to section 16-1610 or 16-1814, Idaho Code, and admitted to a facility for the treatment of minors.”
State v. Burke (Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 18-212(6) — 2 cases
State v. Burke, 462 P.3d 599 (Idaho 2020). “I.C. § 18-212. The order of commitment issued by the court required the county sheriff to transport Burke to the facility.”
State v. Burke (Idaho 2020).
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.