Miss. R. Crim. P. 12.1

As amended through March 21, 2024

Rule 12.1 - Mental Competency; Definition

(a) Mental Competency. There is a presumption of mental competency. In order to be deemed mentally competent, a defendant must have the ability to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings, to communicate rationally with the defendant's attorney about the case, to recall relevant facts, and to testify in the defendant's own defense, if appropriate. The presence of a mental illness, defect, or disability alone is not grounds for finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial. If as a result of mental illness, defect, or disability, a defendant lacks mental competency, then the defendant shall not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for a criminal offense.

(b) Mental Illness, Defect, or Disability. Mental illness, defect, or disability means a psychiatric or neurological disorder that is evidenced by behavioral or emotional symptoms, including congenital mental conditions, conditions resulting from injury or disease, or developmental disabilities.

Miss. R. Crim. P. 12.1

Adopted eff. 7/1/2017.

Comment

" [T]he criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process." Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354, 116 S. Ct. 1373, 1376, 134 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1996) (citation omitted). See also Caylor v. State, 437 So. 2d 444, 445 (Miss. 1983) (citing Emanuel v. State, 412 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Miss. 1982)). The Mississippi Supreme Court has outlined the requisite abilities for a defendant to be deemed mentally competent. See Jay v. State, 25 So. 3d 257, 261 (Miss. 2009); Martin v. State, 871 So. 2d 693, 697-98 (Miss. 2004). In that analysis, there is a presumption of mental competency. See Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613, 660 (Miss. 1997). Rule 12.1 addresses only the defendant's competency to stand trial, and not the defendant's possible insanity at the time of the alleged offense. See Parker v. State, 30 So. 3d 1222, 1230-31 (Miss. 2010); Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 448, 112 S. Ct. 2572, 2579, 120 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1992) ("there are significant differences between a claim of incompetence and a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity."); Caylor, 437 So. 2d at 447 n.1. If reasonable grounds exist to doubt the defendant's competence to stand trial, the procedures in Rules 12.2 through 12.6 should be followed.