hearing -- Termination of criminal proceedings not bar to civil proceedings.
(1) (a) The court may order a defendant to be examined on an outpatient basis when
the defendant:
1. Is believed to be incompetent to stand trial;
2. Intends to assert a defense of insanity at the time of the commission of
the offense; or
3. Intends to introduce evidence of mental illness or intellectual disability
bearing on the issue of guilt, punishment, or both.
(b) The examination shall be done by an examiner from a treatment facility
designated by the secretary to perform evaluations required by this chapter.
(c) If the examiner concludes that inpatient examination is needed, the court may
order the defendant be:
1. Committed to a forensic psychiatric facility or its designee for no more
than thirty (30) days for further examination; and
2. Treated for his or her mental condition subject to the availability of the
facility, if necessary.
(2) (a) No later than ten (10) days after the examination, the examiner shall issue and
deliver a report prepared under this chapter consistent with the terms of the
referring court order.
(b) The court shall order the report be filed under seal, with notice of filing to all
parties, and shall schedule the case for a status conference or hearing no more
than thirty (30) days after the filing of the report.
(3) The defendant shall be present at any hearing on his or her mental condition unless
he or she waives the right to be present.
(4) The examiner shall appear at any hearing on the defendant's mental condition
unless the defendant waives his or her right to have the examiner appear.
(5) An examiner retained by the defendant shall be permitted to participate in any
examination under this chapter.
(6) The Cabinet for Health and Family Services, if the cabinet or its agent or employee
does not provide the examination, shall pay a reasonable fee to any examiner
ordered to examine, treat, or report on a defendant's mental condition.
(7) The termination of criminal proceedings under this chapter is not a bar to the
institution of civil commitment proceedings.
Effective: July 15, 2024
History: Amended 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 138, sec. 4, effective July 15, 2024. -- Amended
2005 Ky. Acts ch. 99, sec. 654, effective June 20, 2005. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts
ch. 426, sec. 606, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 139, sec.
16, effective July 15, 1988. -- Created 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 113, sec. 3, effective July
15, 1982.
Legislative Research Commission Note (7/15/2024). 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 138, sec. 7,
provides that the Act, which amended this section and KRS 311.631, 504.060,
504.070, 504.100, and 504.110, may be cited as Seth's Law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case:
Bishop v. Caudill, 118 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
Bishop v. Caudill, 118 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 6× “[5] KRS 504.080(4) ("The examining psychologist or psychiatrist shall appear at any hearing on the defendant's mental condition unless the defendant waives his right to have him appear").”
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 4× “KRS 504.080 sets forth the procedural requirements for a competency hearing when a hearing is required by KRS *34 504.”
Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 435 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Although Jacobs asserts that the trial court's rulings initially denying those funds and ordering his evaluation at KCPC violated his statutory right to have a defense expert participate in the examination, [4] the defense does not cite the Court to any assertion of entitlement…”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 103 S.W.3d 687 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 2× “" On June 13, 1994, the prosecution filed a motion requesting that Appellant undergo a competency evaluation at KCPC pursuant to KRS 504.080 and KRS 504.100. As grounds for the evaluation, the prosecution referred to a psychological report, issued by DPA psychologist Dr.”
Gabbard v. Commonwealth, 887 S.W.2d 547 (Ky. 1994).
· cites it 2× “If there is sufficient cause to hold a competency hearing, which the trial court found there to be in this case, then KRS 504.080 lays out requirements for the hearing.”
Commonwealth v. Wooten, 269 S.W.3d 857 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 2× “" [KRS 504.080(5)]. Of course, it goes without saying that a defendant with the financial means to do so can develop additional expert testimony by submitting to an independent competency evaluation by an expert of his or her choice.”
White v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 208 (Ky. 2016).
“Statutory Authorization White also contends that KCPC is not statutorily authorized, under KRS 504.080 and its accompanying provisions, to conduct post-conviction psychological evaluations.”
Cain v. Abramson, 220 S.W.3d 276 (Ky. 2007).
“However, Cain has a remedy via the “otherwise” language of the standard enunciated above: Cain can procure his own expert to observe the evaluation pursuant to KRS 504.080(5). Ironically, in Cain’s response to the Commonwealth’s motion to exclude defense counsel from the…”
White v. Payne, 332 S.W.3d 45 (Ky. 2011).
“185, KRS 504.080, or this Court’s precedents, and instead seeks $5,000.”
Thomas R. Moore v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2025).
· cites it 2× “4 On April 11, 2018, Moore’s lawyer expressed concern 5 and moved the circuit court to have Moore evaluated as to his competency to stand trial at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC) under KRS 504.080(1). The circuit court granted this motion.”
Lisa R. Harvey v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2021).
“Prior to trial Harvey moved for a competency evaluation pursuant to KRS 504.080. The motion was granted and Harvey was examined at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC).”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 504.080(1) — 2 cases
Thomas R. Moore v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2025).
“4 On April 11, 2018, Moore’s lawyer expressed concern 5 and moved the circuit court to have Moore evaluated as to his competency to stand trial at the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC) under KRS 504.080(1). The circuit court granted this motion.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 504.080(3) — 1 case
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2004).
“KRS 504.080 sets forth the procedural requirements for a competency hearing when a hearing is required by KRS *34 504.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 504.080(4) — 2 cases
Bishop v. Caudill, 118 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
“[5] KRS 504.080(4) ("The examining psychologist or psychiatrist shall appear at any hearing on the defendant's mental condition unless the defendant waives his right to have him appear").”
Gabbard v. Commonwealth, 887 S.W.2d 547 (Ky. 1994).
“If there is sufficient cause to hold a competency hearing, which the trial court found there to be in this case, then KRS 504.080 lays out requirements for the hearing.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 504.080(5) — 6 cases
Bishop v. Caudill, 118 S.W.3d 159 (Ky. 2003).
“[5] KRS 504.080(4) ("The examining psychologist or psychiatrist shall appear at any hearing on the defendant's mental condition unless the defendant waives his right to have him appear").”
Jacobs v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 435 (Ky. 2001).
“Although Jacobs asserts that the trial court's rulings initially denying those funds and ordering his evaluation at KCPC violated his statutory right to have a defense expert participate in the examination, [4] the defense does not cite the Court to any assertion of entitlement…”
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2004).
“KRS 504.080 sets forth the procedural requirements for a competency hearing when a hearing is required by KRS *34 504.”
Commonwealth v. Wooten, 269 S.W.3d 857 (Ky. 2008).
“" [KRS 504.080(5)]. Of course, it goes without saying that a defendant with the financial means to do so can develop additional expert testimony by submitting to an independent competency evaluation by an expert of his or her choice.”
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.