Date: 10/03/2013

Final
Discussion of Proposed Legislation - Bill 2

TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Refer Bill 2 (Attachment F) to the Legislative CouPASS



11:10 AM -- Discussion of Proposed Legislation - Bill 2

Michael Ramirez, MICJS Task Force member, discussed his professional background and involvement with the task force. Copies of proposed Bill 2, concerning the determination of competency to proceed for individuals in the juvenile justice system, (Attachment F) were provided to the committee. He discussed the issues the MICJS Task Force has studied related to juvenile justice, specifically related to not guilty by reason of insanity defenses, the history of competency legislation and whether research in the area of brain development would necessitate those statutes being updated, the need for services for youth that age out of juvenile jurisdiction without ever being restored to competency, and whether there was a need to amend statutes to address existing gaps. He stated that there were gaps in statute, and that is why the task force was recommending Bill 2. Mr. Ramirez provided a list of the juvenile justice subcommittee members (Attachment G). He discussed the stakeholder process of the juvenile justice subcommittee. Mr. Ramirez discussed the need to clarify and clean-up the language defining competency through the statute. He discussed the need to have the juvenile competency statute be unique to juveniles, and the fact that the current statutes reference competency as it relates to adults. Mr. Ramirez discussed other recommendations that were discussed by the juvenile justice subcommittee, but were not being brought forth by the task force at this time, which concern competency evaluation deadlines and restoration structure. He discussed the challenges of collecting data about competency evaluations and the utilization of private contractors for competency evaluations. He discussed the need for a centralized and consistent system for all competency evaluations. He discussed the reasons why the recommendations concerning evaluation deadlines and restoration structure were not being brought forth in legislation from the task force at this time.

13MICJS1003AttachF.pdf13MICJS1003AttachF.pdf 13MICJS1003AttachG.pdf13MICJS1003AttachG.pdf

11:25 AM

Representative Rosenthal asked whether the bill will impact direct-files and the types of crimes that the juveniles allegedly committed resulting in a competency evaluation being needed. In response to a question, Mr. Ramirez stated that not all juveniles are referred to the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo, but that it depends on the jurisdiction. Ms. Walton discussed competency evaluations for juveniles who are removed from their homes and placed in out-of-home placements. Mr. Ramirez shared a case study of a youth being held in Gilliam Youth Services Center for 191 days before a competency evaluation was provided. Representative Rosenthal discussed the services the juvenile may have received at Gilliam Youth Services Center. The committee dialogued with Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Walton about why data on juvenile competency evaluations is not available.


11:41 AM

Representative Wright asked how Bill 2 would help address issues related to juvenile competency. Mr. Ramirez stated that the bill focuses the competency language on juveniles and removes language concerning adult competency. Representative Rosenthal discussed amending the statutes to allow a dismissal of charges after 60 days, if an evaluation is not completed. Senator Tochtrop discussed the lack of data availability in general. Mr. Ramirez responded to questions about whether adult competency evaluations are centralized and why evaluation timelines are not being met. Mr. Ramirez stated that there is not a standardized approach in the competency evaluations for juveniles. Senator Newell discussed the efforts of the Juvenile Justice Task Force under the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to look at a variety of evaluations. Representative Rosenthal asked whether a juvenile would be able to manipulate an evaluation. Ms. Walton discussed aspects of forensic psychology. Mr. Ramirez responded to questions about the involvement of district attorneys and representatives of the judicial districts in the juvenile justice subcommittee and whether they supported the proposed legislation.


11:58 AM

Senator Newell discussed whether the committee could address the juvenile justice subcommittee's recommendations that are not being brought forth in Bill 2 at this time. Senator King expressed concerns about directing the judicial branch on their operations and procedures. He suggested the possibility of talking with the Supreme Court administrator or drafting a letter to the Chief Justice concerning the evaluation deadlines. Representative Wright discussed the need for a standard for evaluations. Senator King discussed the need for flexibility in the judicial system to address juvenile cases. Ms. Walton and Mr. Ramirez discussed reaching out to task force members and others on expanding the bill's scope. Senator Newell discussed the options available to the committee concerning the bill. The committee discussed whether to move the bill forward as drafted and whether the bill adheres to federal law. Ms. Ritter responded to questions about language in the bill concerning the federal definition of developmental disability.


12:14 PM

Mr. Ramirez and Ms. Walton discussed changing language on page 2, line 6, to be up to the 21st birthday rather than the 22nd. Mr. Ramirez discussed changing language on page 3, line 21, changing court-appointed special assistant to court-appointed special advocate. The committee discussed the possibility of another meeting to address outstanding issues related to juvenile competency. The committee determined that they would meet in November or December, if necessary, after the task force further discusses the outstanding issues related to juvenile competency.
BILL:Discussion of Proposed Legislation - Bill 2
TIME: 12:24:36 PM
MOVED:Rosenthal
MOTION:Refer Bill 2 (Attachment F) to the Legislative Council with amendments to page 2, line 6, changing the language to be up to the 21st birthday, and on page 3, line 21, changing court-appointed special assistant to court-appointed special advocate. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0, with one member absent.
SECONDED:
VOTE
King
Yes
Rosenthal
Yes
Tochtrop
Yes
Wright
Yes
Labuda
Absent
Newell
Yes
Final YES: 5 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 1 FINAL ACTION: PASS


12:25 PM

The committee discussed the sponsorship of the bill. It was determined that the bill would be introduced in the House with Representative Rosenthal and Senator Newell as the prime sponsors. Representative Wright and Senator Tochtrop will be co-sponsors on the bill.


12:29 PM

Senator Newell expressed her appreciation to the task force and adjourned the committee.