Mental illness can enter a criminal case in more than one way. Sometimes it affects whether a person can understand what is happening in court. Sometimes it raises a question about what that person understood when the alleged crime occurred. Minnesota law treats those as different questions.
The simplest distinction is this: Rule 20.01 and Minnesota’s competency statutes ask whether a defendant can fairly participate in the case today. The judge decides that question. Rule 20.02 asks whether the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the alleged offense. That question is decided by the fact-finder, which is the jury in a jury trial or the judge in a court trial.
That sounds simple enough, but in practice the lines can be difficult. A person can be seriously mentally ill and still be competent. Mental illness and legal incompetency are not the same thing. Under Minnesota statutes section 611.42, the question is whether mental illness or cognitive impairment prevents the defendant from rationally consulting with an attorney, understanding the proceedings, or participating in the defense. If there is a reasonable basis to doubt competency, the criminal proceedings are suspended while the issue is evaluated. The court may consider examination reports and testimony, but in the end the judge decides whether the defendant is competent and whether the case can move forward.
A finding of incompetency does not decide guilt or innocence. Nor does it mean a defendant simply walks out the courthouse doors without conditions. If charges remain pending, Minnesota law requires the court to order a program designed to help the defendant attain competency. Depending on the circumstances, that may occur outside jail, in treatment, or in a jail-based program. The court must choose the least restrictive appropriate option while considering both the defendant’s needs and public safety. If competency is restored, the criminal case resumes.
Rule 20.02 looks the other way. It looks back. It asks what the defendant understood when the alleged act occurred. Here, too, mental illness alone is not enough. A person can live with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, or another serious mental illness and still be criminally responsible under Minnesota law. Under Minnesota statutes section 611.026, the question is narrower: Because of mental illness or cognitive impairment, did the defendant suffer from such a defect of reason that the defendant did not know the nature of the act, or did not know that it was wrong?
The court may order an examination, but the examiner does not decide the case. In a jury trial, the jury first decides whether the state proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If it did, the jury then considers the Rule 20.02 defense in a separate stage. In a court trial, the judge decides both questions. The defendant must prove the Rule 20.02 defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
A defendant found not guilty by reason of mental illness or cognitive impairment does not simply walk free. If the defendant is not already civilly committed, commitment proceedings must begin, and the defendant is detained while those proceedings are completed.
One process asks whether the road ahead can fairly be traveled. The other asks what the defendant could understand at a point on the road already traveled. Mental illness may be present in both places, but diagnosis, competency, and criminal responsibility are three different things.
Steve Hanke is a 6th Judicial District judge in the Lake County Courthouse in Two Harbors and in the Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais.
