The Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Monday ordering that a Larimer County defendant receive a second competency evaluation, reversing a district court's denial of the request in *People v. Austin Rhys McGee*.
The high court, sitting en banc, held that District Judge Susan Jasmine Blanco erred when she denied defense counsel's request for a second-opinion competency evaluation for defendant Austin Rhys McGee. The case originated in Larimer County District Court under case number 21CR991.
Justice Carlos Samour delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Monica Marquez and Justices William Boatright, Richard Gabriel, Melissa Hart, and Maria Berkenkotter joined. The court issued an order making absolute its previous ruling in the matter.
The procedural dispute centered on the district court's handling of competency evaluation requests. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, the trial court initially granted the defense's request for a competency evaluation, explaining that it did so "merely for the benefit of the Defense" rather than because of genuine concerns about McGee's competency to stand trial.
However, when defense counsel subsequently requested a second-opinion evaluation, the district court denied the request. The trial court reasoned retroactively that the initial evaluation had been sought as a dilatory tactic and should not have been ordered in the first place.
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, stating that "once it had ordered the initial evaluation and that evaluation had been completed, the court could not deny the defense's request for a second-opinion evaluation by finding, retroactively, that the initial evaluation was sought as a dilatory tactic and shouldn't have been ordered in the first place."
In colorful language, Justice Samour wrote that "the proverbial train related to the propriety of the initial evaluation had left the station." The court emphasized that Colorado statutory law provides specific procedures for competency evaluations that must be followed once the process begins.
The case drew attention from civil liberties advocates, with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filing an amicus curiae brief. The ACLU was represented by attorneys Timothy Macdonald and Emma Mclean-Riggs from Denver.
The prosecution was handled by Gordon McLaughlin, District Attorney for the Eighth Judicial District, and Deputy District Attorney Russell Connelly, both from Fort Collins. McGee was represented by Andrew Sidley-MacKie of Sidley-MacKie LLC, also based in Fort Collins.
Competency evaluations are critical procedural safeguards in criminal cases, ensuring that defendants understand the charges against them and can assist in their defense. The Colorado statute governing these evaluations establishes specific rights and procedures that courts must follow when questions of competency arise.
The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces that once a court initiates the competency evaluation process, it cannot arbitrarily cut short that process based on second-guessing its initial decision. This protects defendants' due process rights and ensures consistent application of statutory procedures.
The case highlights the tension that can arise between judicial efficiency concerns and defendants' procedural rights. While courts may be concerned about potential delays in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court made clear that established statutory procedures cannot be circumvented once initiated.
The unanimous nature of the decision suggests the justices viewed this as a straightforward application of existing law rather than a close legal question. The court's emphasis on following proper statutory procedures reflects broader judicial principles about the importance of consistent procedural protections in criminal cases.
For criminal defense attorneys, the ruling provides important guidance on competency evaluation procedures and reinforces their clients' rights to proper evaluation processes. The decision may encourage more careful consideration by trial courts before initially ordering competency evaluations, knowing they must see the process through to completion.
The case also demonstrates the continuing role of appellate courts in ensuring trial courts follow proper procedures, particularly in matters affecting fundamental due process rights. When trial courts attempt to shortcut established procedures, higher courts will intervene to protect defendants' statutory and constitutional protections.
The original criminal case against McGee will now return to the district court, where proper procedures for the second competency evaluation must be followed. The Supreme Court's order making absolute means its ruling is final and must be implemented by the lower court.
This procedural victory for the defense underscores the importance of established legal processes in protecting defendants' rights, even when courts may view certain requests as potentially dilatory. The ruling ensures that competency evaluation procedures will be applied consistently across Colorado's judicial system.