While Ohio has no statewide standard for judging the competence of a juvenile to stand trial, Minnesota has codified a standard substantially the same as that used for an adult. affirming a delinquency adjudication, the appellate court applied the State's formula.
A defendant is incompetent in Minnesota if he or she does not possess the requisite level of understanding to assist and consult with counsel or is unable to understand or participate in the proceedings because of mental disease or defect.
D.D.N., the 15 year-old subject of a delinquency petition charging 1st degree attempted burglary, was ordered evaluated at a treatment facility prior to adjudication to determine competency.
The evaluations concluded that D.D.N. had significant deficiencies in verbal intelligence. This would impair his ability to communicate with his counsel but the evaluators (including a defense expert) were of the opinion that he did understand the nature of the charges, the roles of the players in the criminal justice system and had the "cognitive ability of participating in his defense."
Although it found the accused competent, the Court rejected the prosecution's argument that because delinquency proceedings are not truly criminal, the competency standard should be lowered. Since loss of liberty and punishment are two possible results of a delinquency finding, due process requires the same standard as for adults. Unlike Ohio, Minnesota does not adjust its standard to accommodate a juvenile's lower level of maturity and understanding. It is assumed that there is an objective threshold and that either the defendant is competent or isn't.
WHAT D.D.N. & D.G. MEAN?
Juvenile competency requirement parallel those for adults, but norms are adjusted for age in Ohio.
