2020 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure
Article 9 - Mental Illness and Competency
Section 31-9-2 - Mental examination.

Upon motion of any defendant, the court shall order a mental examination of the defendant before making any determination of competency under Sections 41-13-3 [NMSA 1953] or 31-9-1 NMSA 1978. Where the defendant is determined to be indigent, the court shall pay for the costs of the examination from funds available to the court.

History: 1953 Comp., § 41-13-3.2, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 231, § 3.

Compiler's notes. — Laws 1972, ch. 71, § 18, repealed 41-13-3, 1953 Comp., referred to in this section.

Requirements on court. — Whenever a legitimate concern about the present ability of a defendant to consult and understand is brought to the court's attention, the court is required to consider whatever competency-related evidence is before the court and to determine whether there exists a reasonable doubt as the defendant's competency to stand trial. If the court determines that there is reasonable doubt as to defendant's competency, the court must have defendant's competency professionally evaluated by a qualified professional who must submit a report to the court. State v. Flores, 2005-NMCA-135, 138 N.M. 636, 124 P.3d 1175, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-011, 138 N.M. 586, 124 P.3d 564.

In considering whether reasonable doubt exists, the court must keep in mind the requirement that defendant must have sufficient present ability to consult and understand as required under due process of law. State v. Flores, 2005-NMCA-135, 138 N.M. 636, 124 P.3d 1175, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-011, 138 N.M. 586, 124 P.3d 564.

Entire act (article 31-9) should be read and considered together in arriving at a proper meaning or legislative intent. State v. Morales, 1970-NMCA-036, 81 N.M. 333, 466 P.2d 899, cert. denied, 81 N.M. 305, 466 P.2d 871, and cert. denied, 400 U.S. 842, 91 S. Ct. 84, 27 L. Ed. 2d 77.

Examination depends upon raising of competency issue. — The mental examination required by this section depends upon a "question" as to mental competency first being raised. A "question" on the issue of mental competency is raised only upon a showing of reasonable cause to believe that the defendant is not competent to stand trial. State v. Smith, 1969-NMCA-101, 80 N.M. 742, 461 P.2d 157.

Defendant's motion makes examination mandatory. — If a defendant moves for a mental examination, this section makes it mandatory for the trial court to order such an examination before determining defendant's competency and such an examination is not necessary unless ". . . there is a question as to the mental capacity of a defendant to stand trial . . .." State v. Hovey, 1969-NMCA-049, 80 N.M. 373, 456 P.2d 206.

Motion must include grounds for belief of lack of capacity. — A motion on behalf of an accused for a judicial determination of mental competency to stand trial shall set forth the ground for belief that such mental capacity is lacking. When the motion does not set forth grounds for reasonable cause to believe the defendant may be insane or mentally incompetent, the motion can be denied. "The statute requires such an examination only when it is shown that there is reasonable cause to believe that an accused may be presently insane or otherwise mentally incompetent." State v. Hovey, 1969-NMCA-049, 80 N.M. 373, 456 P.2d 206.

Otherwise, court not required to grant motion. — An examination is not necessary, nor is the court required to grant a motion seeking such examination unless there is a question as to the mental capacity of defendant. State v. Morales, 1970-NMCA-036, 81 N.M. 333, 466 P.2d 899, cert. denied, 81 N.M. 305, 466 P.2d 871, and cert. denied, 400 U.S. 842, 91 S. Ct. 84, 27 L. Ed. 2d 77.

Counsel's impressions of defendant's mental state insufficient. — "Wondering" about defendant's mental capacity which is based solely on counsel's impression was not reasonable cause for a belief that defendant was incompetent to stand trial. State v. Hovey, 1969-NMCA-049, 80 N.M. 373, 456 P.2d 206.

Medical records should be available to attorneys before trial. — Where there was no showing from the record that the disclosure of a psychiatric report to the prosecuting attorney in any way constituted a violation of defendant's fifth amendment rights, the court will not assume facts not supported by the record. A commitment to a public institution by court order is for essentially a public purpose, no matter who commenced it, and the medical records thereof should be available in advance of trial to both prosecution and defense. State v. Lopez, 1969-NMCA-057, 80 N.M. 599, 458 P.2d 851, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 607, 458 P.2d 859, and cert. denied, 398 U.S. 942, 90 S. Ct. 1860, 26 L. Ed. 2d 279 (1970).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 109 et seq.

Validity and construction of statutes providing for psychiatric examination of accused to determine mental condition, 32 A.L.R.2d 434.

Power of court, in absence of statute, to order psychiatric examination of accused for purpose of determining mental condition at time of alleged offense, 17 A.L.R.4th 1274.

Admissibility of results of computer analysis of defendant's mental state, 37 A.L.R.4th 510.

Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of psychiatrist or psychologist, 85 A.L.R.4th 19.

Qualification of nonmedical psychologist to testify as to mental condition or competency, 72 A.L.R.5th 529.