Competent To Stand Trial
ORC 2945.37 — a question about now, not a question about then
Two questions about a person's mind get asked in a criminal case and they are constantly mistaken for each other. One is about the present and it is decided before trial by a judge. The other is about a moment in the past and it is decided at trial. They have different standards, different decision makers and completely different consequences, and using the wrong word for the one you mean is how conversations about this go wrong.
| The question | What moment it looks at | Who decides | What it produces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial | The defendant's present mental condition | The judge, before trial | The case stops where it is, and treatment may be ordered |
| Not guilty by reason of insanity | The defendant's condition at the time of the offence | The trier of fact, at trial | A verdict |
- A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial.
- After a hearing, a court finds a defendant incompetent only where it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that, because of the defendant's present mental condition, the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings, or of assisting in the defence.
- Those are two separate routes to the same finding, and either one on its own is enough.
What happens next is in the following section. A court may order treatment intended to restore competence, on a period the section caps rather than leaves open, and the cap moves with the offence charged. For a felony that is not a first or second degree offence of violence the maximum period is six months.
- A person is not guilty by reason of insanity only where the person proves, in the manner the burden of proof section specifies, that at the time of the commission of the offence the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person's acts.
- The burden is on the person raising it, which is the opposite of how the state's burden works on everything else.
- Not knowing the wrongfulness is the whole test. Having a mental illness, even a serious one, is not the same finding and the definition does not treat it as one.
“Is competency something that can be raised in this case, and who is able to raise it?”
This describes the two questions and the sections that hold them. Whether either one fits a particular person, what an evaluation involves, how the restoration caps apply to a specific charge, and what a court does with a report are all answered case by case on a record. A licensed Ohio attorney is who raises either question, and neither is raised by describing a condition to an officer.
Sources for this section (7)
- ORC 2945.37 — Competency to stand trial, definitions and hearing
- ORC 2945.38 — Disposition after a competency finding, and restoration treatment
- ORC 2901.01 — General definitions, including not guilty by reason of insanity
- ORC 2945.371 — Evaluations and reports of the defendant's mental condition
- ORC 2945.39 — Retaining jurisdiction where competence is not restored
- ORC 5122.11 — Affidavit filed with the probate court
- ORC 2901.05 — Burden of proof, and the self defence presumption
Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of September 2026. Talk to a licensed Ohio attorney about your situation.