According to the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions including 2012 supplements “competent” or “competency” means the present ability of a person to understand the nature of the charges and proceedings and to effectively and rationally assist in their defense.
“Incompetent” or “incompetency” simply means any person who is not presently competent.
The definition of “dangerous” is more complex, and involves six elements such as they pose a substantial risk of immediate physical harm to themselves or to others.
On July 16, the defendant notified the court about his intent to assert an insanity, mental defect defense, according to court records.
Oklahoma City attorney Irven Box, whose résumé includes several of the few successful insanity defense cases in the state, said asserting such a defense is a challenging matter. Issues include if a defendant is presently competent and if they were competent at the time of the alleged offense, Box said.
“It’s a tough road for a defense attorney to show that a client was temporarily insane at the time,” said Box, who happened to be in the court room during a recent hearing involving Sparks.
Issues involved in an insanity defense include a defendant’s ability to rationally assist in their defense, their mental health history before the alleged offense and their treatment following the alleged offense, Box said.
In March, a hearing was held regarding the defendant’s application for determination of competency.
The findings of Dr. Peter Rausch, Ph.D., were presented in a document that is part of the public record.
On Aug. 7, 2012, per the findings, the defendant was able to appreciate the nature of the charges made against him, but he was not able to consult with his lawyer and rationally assist in the preparation of the defense and he was not able to assist counsel due to his experiencing psychiatric symptoms involving paranoid delusions. At the time, the court ruled the defendant, if released, would have been dangerous as defined by state law (Section 1175.1).
Rausch stated that with treatment it was likely the defendant would regain competency.
In January 2013, Rausch reported, Sparks was able to appreciate the nature of the charges against him, he was able to consult with his lawyer and he was able to rationally assist in the preparation of his defense. He was currently receiving treatment for a major mental illness.
Truong ruled the defendant was competent to stand trial.
email@example.com | 341-2121, ext. 108