Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-3302 (2026)

Proceedings to determine competency

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

22-3302. Proceedings to determine competency. (a) At any time after the defendant has been charged with a crime and before pronouncement of sentence, the defendant, the defendant's counsel or the prosecuting attorney may request a determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial. If, upon the request of either party or upon the judge's own knowledge and observation, the judge before whom the case is pending finds that there is reason to believe that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the proceedings shall be suspended and a hearing conducted to determine the competency of the defendant.

(b) If the defendant is charged with a felony, the hearing to determine the competency of the defendant shall be conducted by a district judge.

(c) (1) The court shall determine the issue of competency and may impanel a jury of six persons to assist in making the determination. The court may order a psychiatric or psychological examination of the defendant. To facilitate the examination, the court may:

(A) Order that an evaluation be completed by an appropriate state, county or private institution or facility to be conducted in person or by use of available electronic means while the defendant is in jail, at any secure location or on pretrial release;

(B) designate an appropriate state, county or private institution or facility to conduct the examination while the defendant is in jail, at any secure location or on pretrial release; or

(C) appoint a licensed physician who is qualified through training or experience or a licensed psychologist to examine the defendant and report to the court.

(2) If the court orders the defendant committed to an institution or facility for the examination, the commitment shall be for a period not to exceed 60 days from the date of admission or until the examination is completed, whichever is the shorter period of time. No statement made by the defendant in the course of any examination provided for by this section, whether or not the defendant consents to the examination, shall be admitted in evidence against the defendant in any criminal proceeding.

(3) Before the expiration of the 60-day evaluation period, the professional approved by the court to examine the defendant or, if the defendant is committed for inpatient examination, the chief medical officer or head of the appropriate institution or facility shall certify to the court whether the defendant is competent to stand trial.

(4) Upon notification of the court that a defendant committed for psychiatric or psychological examination under this subsection has been found competent to stand trial, the court shall order that the defendant be returned no later than seven days after receipt of the notice for proceedings under this section. If the defendant is not returned within that time, the county where the proceedings will be held shall pay the costs of maintaining the defendant at the institution or facility for the period of time the defendant remains at the institution or facility in excess of the seven-day period.

(d) If the defendant is found to be competent, the proceedings that have been suspended shall be resumed. If the proceedings were suspended before or during the preliminary examination, the judge who conducted the competency hearing may conduct a preliminary examination or, if a district magistrate judge was conducting the proceedings prior to the competency hearing, the judge who conducted the competency hearing may order the preliminary examination to be heard by a district magistrate judge.

(e) If the defendant is found to be incompetent to stand trial, the court shall proceed in accordance with K.S.A. 22-3303, and amendments thereto.

(f) If proceedings are suspended and a hearing to determine the defendant's competency is ordered after the defendant is in jeopardy, the court may either order a recess or declare a mistrial.

(g) The defendant shall be present personally at all proceedings under this section.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3302; L. 1971, ch. 114, § 6; L. 1976, ch. 163, § 17; L. 1977, ch. 121, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 148, § 1; L. 1984, ch. 128, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 115, § 64; L. 1986, ch. 299, § 2; L. 1986, ch. 133, § 2; L. 1992, ch. 309, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 20; L. 2018, ch. 81, § 1; L. 2022, ch. 76, § 7; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 78 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Davis, 130 P.3d 69 (Kan. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Davis, 130 P.3d 69 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 44× “Subparagraph (1) provides: "At any time after the defendant has been charged with a crime and before pronouncement of sentence, the defendant, the defendant's counsel or the prosecuting attorney may request a determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial.”

State v. Ford, 353 P.3d 1143 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 34× “: Consistent with due process protections imposed by the United States Supreme Court, if a district court has a reason to believe a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, K.S.A. 22-3302 requires the court to suspend criminal proceedings and conduct a competency hearing.”

State v. Gross, 417 P.3d 1049 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 27× “22-3302(7) granted him a right to be present when, during the first day of his trial, his attorney spoke with the trial judge and the prosecutor about the attorney's concerns regarding Gross' mental state. Gross' attorney did not ask explicitly for a competency examination or a…”

State v. Woods, 348 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 8× “” *856 The district court initially ordered a psychological evaluation, but that order was later modified to require a competency evaluation under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-3302. The district court stated it believed Woods understood the charges but was not assisting in making his…”

State v. Murray, 353 P.3d 1158 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 18× “Ford, like Murray, alleged the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he had been convicted without compliance with K.S.A. 22-3302. Both Ford and Murray relied on Davis, 281 Kan.”

State v. Edwards, 243 P.3d 683 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 8× “Although the 3-day disparity in appellant’s argument is insignificant in this case, we should clarify that a delay occasioned by the defendant’s competency evaluation necessarily continues until the district court has had a reasonable opportunity to comply with K.S.A.…”

State v. McKinney, 961 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 6× “According to Evans, "this guy had watched me and he grabbed my thing that I had the money in and took out." She continued, "I was opening the door of my car and he pushed me up against a door and grabbed it.”

State v. Peckham, 875 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 8× “; (b) designate any appropriate psychiatric or psychological clinic, mental health center or other psychiatric or psychological facility to conduct the examination while the defendant is in jail or on pretrial release; or (c) appoint two qualified licensed physicians or licensed…”

State v. Johnson, 218 P.3d 46 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 7× “It states, “When reasonable grounds exist to believe that a defendant who *887 has been adjudged incompetent to stand trial is competent, the court in which the criminal case is pending shall conduct a hearing in accordance with K.S.A. 22-3302 and amendments thereto to determine…”

State v. Marshall, 362 P.3d 587 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 3× “3d 265 (2010) (applying abuse of discretion standard to determine whether district court, after ordering defendant to Larned State Hospital for a competency evaluation, *445 conducting a competency hearing, and finding defendant competent to stand trial, erred when it failed to…”

State v. Barnes, 948 P.2d 627 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 9× “The defendant argued that K.S.A. 22-3302 violated his right to due process in that it did not set out an evidentiary standard to be used in competency proceedings.”

State v. Foster, 233 P.3d 265 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 3× “*702 Analysis Issue 1: Foster’s competency during trial Foster argues that despite having ordered him to Lamed State Hospital for a competency evaluation, holding a competency hearing, and finding he was competent to stand trial, the district court should have revisited his…”

Show all 78 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(1) — 34 cases

State v. Davis, 130 P.3d 69 (Kan. 2006). “Subparagraph (1) provides: "At any time after the defendant has been charged with a crime and before pronouncement of sentence, the defendant, the defendant's counsel or the prosecuting attorney may request a determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial.”

State v. Edwards, 243 P.3d 683 (Kan. 2010). “Although the 3-day disparity in appellant’s argument is insignificant in this case, we should clarify that a delay occasioned by the defendant’s competency evaluation necessarily continues until the district court has had a reasonable opportunity to comply with K.S.A.…”

State v. Ford, 353 P.3d 1143 (Kan. 2015). “: Consistent with due process protections imposed by the United States Supreme Court, if a district court has a reason to believe a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, K.S.A. 22-3302 requires the court to suspend criminal proceedings and conduct a competency hearing.”

State v. Marshall, 362 P.3d 587 (Kan. 2015). “3d 265 (2010) (applying abuse of discretion standard to determine whether district court, after ordering defendant to Larned State Hospital for a competency evaluation, *445 conducting a competency hearing, and finding defendant competent to stand trial, erred when it failed to…”

State v. Murray, 353 P.3d 1158 (Kan. 2015). “Ford, like Murray, alleged the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he had been convicted without compliance with K.S.A. 22-3302. Both Ford and Murray relied on Davis, 281 Kan.”

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(2) — 6 cases

State v. Woods, 348 P.3d 583 (Kan. 2015). “” *856 The district court initially ordered a psychological evaluation, but that order was later modified to require a competency evaluation under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-3302. The district court stated it believed Woods understood the charges but was not assisting in making his…”

State v. Cheun-Phon Ji, 832 P.2d 1176 (Kan. 1992).

State v. Peckham, 875 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1994). “; (b) designate any appropriate psychiatric or psychological clinic, mental health center or other psychiatric or psychological facility to conduct the examination while the defendant is in jail or on pretrial release; or (c) appoint two qualified licensed physicians or licensed…”

State v. Green, 781 P.2d 678 (Kan. 1989).

State v. D'Arcy (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(3) — 15 cases

State v. McKinney, 961 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1998). “According to Evans, "this guy had watched me and he grabbed my thing that I had the money in and took out." She continued, "I was opening the door of my car and he pushed me up against a door and grabbed it.”

State v. Groschang, 36 P.3d 231 (Kan. 2001).

State v. Costa, 613 P.2d 1359 (Kan. 1980).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(3)(b) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(3)(c) — 1 case

State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(4) — 5 cases

State v. Gross, 417 P.3d 1049 (Kan. 2018). “22-3302(7) granted him a right to be present when, during the first day of his trial, his attorney spoke with the trial judge and the prosecutor about the attorney's concerns regarding Gross' mental state. Gross' attorney did not ask explicitly for a competency examination or a…”

State v. Johnson, 218 P.3d 46 (Kan. 2009). “It states, “When reasonable grounds exist to believe that a defendant who *887 has been adjudged incompetent to stand trial is competent, the court in which the criminal case is pending shall conduct a hearing in accordance with K.S.A. 22-3302 and amendments thereto to determine…”

State v. Staggs, 9 P.3d 601 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).

In re Habeas Corpus by Snyder, 422 P.3d 1152 (Kan. 2018).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(5) — 2 cases

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(6) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(7) — 3 cases

State v. Perkins, 811 P.2d 1142 (Kan. 1991).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(8) — 1 case

State v. Baker, 689 P.2d 803 (Kan. 1984).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(a) — 2 cases

State v. Groschang, 36 P.3d 231 (Kan. 2001).

State v. Brennan (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(a)(3) — 1 case

State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(c)(1)(A) — 1 case

Glendening v. Howard (D. Kan. 2023).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(c)(2) — 1 case

Glendening v. Howard (D. Kan. 2023).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(g) — 1 case

State v. Allen (Kan. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 22-3302(l) — 1 case

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.