Competent To Stand Trial
Crim. Proc. art. 46B.003 — presumed competent, unless proved incompetent by a preponderance
Competency is a question about the present: whether the person can understand the proceedings and help with the defense now. The defendant's mental state at the time of the offense is a different question, which this page does not cover.
The test. A person is incompetent to stand trial if the person lacks sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings. A defendant is presumed competent and is found competent unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Either party may suggest incompetency by motion, and the court may suggest it on its own.
- If evidence suggesting incompetency comes to the court's attention, the court on its own motion suggests it.
- A suggestion from any credible source is enough to require an informal inquiry, and the court does not need a bona fide doubt first.
- If the inquiry finds some evidence to support incompetency, the court stays all other proceedings, with the exceptions the chapter allows.
Restoration treatment, commitment after a finding of incompetence, how long a case can stay suspended, and the insanity defense are set out in other sections and are not on this page. Whether a particular person is competent is decided by a court on evidence, and is a question for a licensed Texas attorney.
Sources for this section (2)
- Crim. Proc. art. 46B.003 — Incompetency; presumptions
- Crim. Proc. art. 46B.004 — Raising issue of incompetency to stand trial
Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of September 2026. Applying it to a particular situation is the work of a licensed Texas attorney.