§ 18.03 MENTAL COMPETENCY

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 18.03. MENTAL COMPETENCY

Persons of "unsound mind" were automatically disqualified from testifying at common law.¹⁴ This is not true today. A more sophisticated analysis is required because many mental conditions do not affect a person's ability to testify. Even those persons adjudged insane are not necessarily disqualified because the test for insanity differs from the standard for witness competency and focuses on a different point in time.¹⁵ Civil commitment also does not automatically disqualify a person from testifying.¹⁶ Expert testimony may be admitted on this issue.

Psychological examinations. The trial court has the authority to order a psychiatric or psychological examination of a potential witness who is challenged on mental competency grounds,¹⁷ but few courts do so.¹⁸

--------

Notes:

^[14] Competence to testify should be distinguished from other types of mental conditions: (1) competency to stand trial, (2) insanity at the time of the crime, (3) competency for civil commitment, and (4) competence to make a will. These all use different tests, which is not surprising since they are directed at very different legal issues.

^[15] See State v. Wildman, 61 N.E.2d 790, 793-94 (Ohio 1945) ("Under the trend of modern decisions the fact that the witness is insane does not necessarily exclude him from the witness stand.. . . A person who is able to correctly state matters which have come within his perception, with respect to the issues involved, and appreciates and understands the nature and obligation of an oath is a competent witness, notwithstanding some unsoundness of mind.").

^[16] See Andrews v. Neer, 253 F.3d 1052, 1062-63 (8th Cir. 2001) ("Pleas's status as an involuntarily committed schizophrenic was available for the appellants' use to challenge Pleas's credibility. But his status does not ipso facto render him incompetent to testify in federal district court. . . .").

^[17] See Conrad, Mental Examination of Witnesses, 11 Syracuse L. Rev. 149 (1960); Weihofen, Testimonial Competence and Credibility, 34 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 53, 55 (1964) ("[T]he judge has discretion to admit extrinsic evidence on the question [of competency], to use mental and psychological tests, and to hear opinion evidence of psychiatric experts.").

^[18] E.g., United States v. Gutman, 725 F.2d 417 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Heinlein, 490 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1973); United States v. Butler, 481 F.2d 531, 534 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ("[S]uch an examination 'may seriously impinge on...