The impact of misdemeanor arrests on forensic mental health services: A state-wide review of Virginia sanity evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the prevalence of criminal defendants facing only misdemeanor charges and referred for forensic mental health evaluations of legal sanity (criminal responsibility) in a state-wide sample of sanity reports. We sought to describe this population of defendants, particularly as compared to defendants facing felony charges and referred for evaluation of legal sanity. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that, among those referred for sanity evaluations, defendants facing only misdemeanor charges would have higher rates of serious mental illness than would defendants charged with felonies, as evidenced by their mental status during the evaluation and at the time of alleged offenses. We also hypothesized that defendants charged with only misdemeanors would be more often opined insane, as compared to those charged with felonies. METHOD: We reviewed a statewide sample of 926 court-ordered sanity evaluation reports in Virginia and coded numerous variables describing the defendants, sanity evaluation process, resulting reports, and legal opinions offered within the reports. RESULTS: Approximately 22.3% of sanity evaluations involved defendants charged only with misdemeanor offenses. Defendants facing only misdemeanor charges were 1.82 times more likely to be opined insane than were defendants facing only felony charges, primarily due to their increased likelihood of experiencing psychotic symptoms at the time of the offense (1.83 times more likely than defendants facing felony charges). CONCLUSIONS: The merits of pursuing the insanity defense in response to misdemeanor charges are questionable given the cost- and resource-intensive outcomes associated with insanity acquittals. Diversion strategies may be a more efficient response to those defendants with serious mental illness facing only misdemeanor charges. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Competency to stand trial evaluations: A state-wide review of court-ordered reports.

Competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations are a critical part of certain criminal proceedings, and competence-related evaluation and treatment are an increasing part of public mental health services. Whereas more research describes the defendants undergoing competence evaluations, less research has examined the actual reports detailing those competence evaluations. This study reviewed 3,644 court-ordered CST evaluation reports submitted by 126 evaluators in Virginia since Virginia initiated an oversight system allowing for comprehensive review. The base rate of incompetence opinions was 38.8%, but these rates varied significantly across evaluation type (initial versus post-restoration efforts) and evaluators (ranging from 9.1% to 76.8% incompetence rate). Results suggest generally strong compliance with state statutes guiding CST evaluations, but also highlight marked variability in forensic conclusions and reveal a few areas in which some reports fell short of statutory requirements and practice guidelines.