Defendants Charged with Violent Crimes Can Be Placed in Detainment Indefinitely Waiting for Mental Health Evaluations

According to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, courts can let people with mental health conditions sit in jail, indefinitely, waiting for mental health evaluations to determine whether they need to be involuntarily committed to regain the mental capacity to proceed to trial. This decision balks in the face of due process, justice, and the fundamental principle of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty.  

What is Involuntary Commitment? 

Involuntary Commitment is a confidential legal process that operates through the Court system.  The Court, or judge, can authorize the detainment of someone with an acute and serious mental health condition and mandate that they receive treatment or an evaluation. It is typically necessary when someone is not able or willing to seek care themselves. 

What is the relevance for Involuntary Commitment in a criminal setting in North Carolina? 

In a criminal trial, a defendant must have the capacity to proceed, meaning they must be able to understand what is happening around them in their trial. If a judge finds they lack the capacity to proceed, the trial cannot go forward, and the judge must then determine whether they meet the criteria for involuntary commitment. If they do, the hope is that they will be admitted, receive an evaluation, and then if needed, receive treatment to gain capacity.  

Mental incapacity is not a “get out of jail free card” or an affirmative defense. Additionally, it is separate from an insanity defense, which is a complete defense that says a defendant cannot be criminally responsible for their actions due to their mental illness. Here, with mental incapacity, the hope and goal from this rehabilitation is that a defendant will gain the capacity to stand trial themselves, not absolve them of their potential culpability.  

This is, in theory, a laudable feature of our criminal justice system: we do not want to sentence someone when they do not understand what is going on, what they are charged with, or what their possible defenses are. We want people to be able to have the capacity to sufficiently defend themselves and make their best case—especially when the stakes are so high. However, in practice, this process does not play out as intended. 

What does the Involuntary Commitment Procedure look like and require in North Carolina for a defendant charged with a violent crime? 

Involuntary Commitment can come up with any charge, but there is a separate procedure for people who are charged with a violent crime that this post will focus on.  

After a judge finds someone who was charged with a violent crime incapable of proceeding to trial, then the court must next determine whether the defendant is eligible for involuntary commitment under Chapter 122C, also known as the Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Act of 1985.  

If a judge finds that the defendant meets the threshold for involuntary commitment, the judge issues a custody order that states that the defendant was charged with a violent crime and was found incapable of proceeding. The defendant is then placed in the custody of a law enforcement officer and taken to a 24-hour psychiatric facility.  

Defendants are supposed to be taken directly to a 24-hour facility so that they can receive an evaluation. North Carolina law mandates that the examination be performed within 24 hours  after arrival at a local facility. After the examination, the defendant is released back into the custody of the specified law enforcement agency until the hearing, which is required by law to be held within ten days.  

Despite this clearly delineated procedure, the reality for North Carolinians facing involuntary commitment proceedings is drastically different.  

A look at In Re: W.C.F: 

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently considered such a case. In Re: W.C.F., a judge issued an involuntary commitment order for the respondent on May 14, 2021, after finding him incapable of proceeding to trial. After this order, the respondent was immediately taken into custody by law enforcement. However, he was not taken directly to a 24-hour facility for his evaluation as required by law. Instead, he was held in the New Hanover Detention Facility for over four months before finally being transferred to Cherry Hospital in Wayne County.  

Ultimately, the respondent’s hearing was on October 7, 2021. This means that the respondent was held in custody for 146 days, violating the statutory requirement by 136 days (about 4 and a half months).  

The respondent, on appeal of the involuntary commitment order, contended that this delay was a statutory violation; therefore, the involuntary commitment order should be dismissed. However, on November 1, 2022, the court determined that he was held “pursuant to a lawful order.” 

What are the implications of this decision? 

The judge did not rule that there was a statutory violation of the respondent’s rights when he was held in a detention center for over four months waiting for an evaluation even though the statute mandates that the follow-up hearing occurs within ten days. Instead, the judge glossed over the statutory violation and focused on the fact that the respondent was being held pursuant to lawful order. He was not to be released from custody until the evaluation was completed, even though the respondent had not stood trial, was not yet deemed guilty or not guilty by our justice system, and was statutorily not supposed to be held for more than ten days.  

He was stuck in a detention facility to wait it out. Nothing in his case could move forward, and he was essentially frozen in time, serving time in a detention facility. 

And yet, despite this blatant statutory violation, the respondent had to wait because there was no available bed for him. The court and state were not intentionally trying to hold him for a long time or deprive him of his rights. But the court is somewhat without recourse: while they can’t drop all of these cases, they’re without the resources to ensure the treatment these defendants deserve.  

Therefore, it seems that the bigger issue seems to be more systemic: the drastic underfunding of mental health resources. Cherry Hospital is one of the three facilities in all of North Carolina with the capacity to house those charged with violent crimes. There are only three places in the whole state where people like the respondent can be sent to, and the respondent is not alone in his situation. Despite the fact that these people may arguably need mental health treatment the most, the N.C. legislature does not seem pressed to remedy this issue.  

Jameson Kavel

Class of 2025, Staff Member