Miss. R. Crim. P. 12.2

As amended through October 31, 2024

Rule 12.2 - Examination of Defendant's Mental Condition

(a)Competency to Stand Trial or Be Sentenced. If at any time before or after indictment, the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is mentally incompetent, the court shall order the defendant to submit to a mental examination.

(b)Insanity Defense. If the defendant has timely raised a defense of insanity pursuant to Rule 17.4(b), the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, may order the defendant to submit to a mental examination to investigate the defendant's mental condition at the time of the offense.

(c)Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases. If at any time the court, on its own motion or the motion of any party, has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant's intellectual disability bars imposition of a sentence of death, the court may order the defendant tested and/or examined to determine whether the defendant is intellectually disabled.

(d)Contents of Motion; Order. The motion shall state the facts upon which the mental examination is sought. The mental examination shall be conducted by a competent psychiatrist and/or psychologist approved by the court.

(e)Medical and Criminal History Records. All available medical and criminal history records shall be provided to the examining mental health expert as and when ordered by the court. A certificate of compliance shall be filed with the court documenting that the records were submitted as ordered.

Miss. R. Crim. P. 12.2

Adopted eff. 7/1/2017.

Comment

Rule 12.2 includes standards provided in former Rules 9.06 and 9.07 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court. The determination of the defendant's mental competency should be made at the earliest practicable date. The United States Supreme Court has held that the failure to make a determination of competency when there are reasonable grounds to doubt such is fundamental constitutional error. See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S. Ct. 896, 43 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S. Ct. 836, 15 L. Ed. 2d 815 (1966). See also House v. State, 754 So. 2d 1147, 1152 (Miss. 1999).

Sections (a) and (b) make clear that the determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial is separate and distinct from the determination of the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. An examination to investigate competency may be combined with an examination to investigate the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense, provided that the judicial order makes a clear distinction between the two purposes for evaluation to ensure that the correct legal criteria are applied. While the test for competency is distinct, as a matter of law, from the test for sanity at the time of the offense, the reports prepared may contain information having a substantial bearing on both issues.

Section (c) extends this process to cases in which there are reasonable grounds to believe the defendant's intellectual disability precludes the imposition of a death sentence. See Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013, 1027 (Miss. 2004) (citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002)).