Skip to main content
· 7/18/2019

in Interest of R.F

Citations

  • 2019 COA 110

Syllabus

R.F. was charged with second degree assault. Following a competency evaluation, he was diagnosed with psychosis and found incompetent to stand trial. After other restoration efforts proved unsuccessful, the People petitioned the district court for permission to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medications to R.F. and to monitor any side effects. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the People had met their burden to show that administration of the medication was necessary to advance the state's interest in restoring R.F. to competency and granted the People's petition. On appeal, R.F. argued that the People failed to prove that the involuntary administration of drugs will significantly further the important governmental interest at stake and that involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests. R.F.'s argument is based on People in the Interest of Hardesty, 2014 COA 138, which adopted an eight-factor test for determining the propriety of the involuntary administration of medication. The Due Process Clause recognizes an interest in avoiding involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs. Thus, the government may only administer such medication to a defendant to render him or her competent to stand trial in cases that are sufficiently exceptional to warrant such extraordinary measure. To satisfy this \sufficiently exceptional\ test, rather than meeting the eight-factor Hardesty test, the People must satisfy the four-part test articulated in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Under Sell, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) important governmental interests are at stake (2) involuntary medication will significantly further those interests (3) involuntary medication is necessary to further the governmental interests and (4) administration of the drugs is medically appropriate. Here, R.F. conceded that all four Sell factors were proved by clear and convincing evidence. The order was affirmed.

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.