WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 935

Let criminal court make certain mental capacity determinations

136th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Josh Williams

Allows criminal courts to determine if a defendant's mental illness or intellectual disability should lead to court-ordered treatment or institutionalization during competency to s

Referred to committee
#civillaw #courts #courtsandcivillaw #crimeandpunishment #crimes #corrections #andlawenforcement #healthandhumanservices #mentalhealthanddisabilities #prisonsandjails #sentencing #substanceabuseandaddiction
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 935

Summary of HB 935 (Ohio, 136th General Assembly)

Purpose and intent

  • HB 935 aims to authorize criminal courts to determine whether a defendant is mentally ill and subject to a court-ordered treatment mechanism, or has an intellectual disability requiring institutionalization, specifically in the context of proceedings to determine competency to stand trial.
  • In practice, this bill would modify existing provisions to allow courts to assess mental illness or intellectual disability as part of competency determinations and related proceedings.

Key provisions and changes

  • Sections amended and new section enacted

    • The bill would amend numerous sections across the Revised Code (including 149.43; 2101.24; 2108.90; 2945.38; 2945.39; and multiple sections in chapters 5122, 5123, etc.) and enact section 5122.051.
    • Central concept: authorize a criminal court to determine whether a defendant is a mentally ill person subject to a court order or a person with an intellectual disability subject to institutionalization, when the court is determining competency to stand trial.

  • Competency to stand trial

    • The existing framework for determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial would continue, but with explicit language allowing the court to determine if the defendant’s mental illness or intellectual disability warrants a court-ordered treatment or institutionalization.
    • This would intersect with processes already governing commitment or treatment under sections dealing with mentally ill persons and institutionalization, potentially affecting guardianship-like, treatment, or commitment mechanisms.

  • Criteria and processes (illustrative, from text scope)

    • The bill introduces a pathway for courts to consider mental illness or intellectual disability in the competency context, including whether treatment or institutionalization is appropriate to restore or protect competency.
    • It references related mechanisms (e.g., psychotropic medication orders, ongoing treatment) as part of ensuring competency, subject to physician advice and court oversight.

  • Public records and related governance (unrelated to core competency aim)

    • The bill contains extensive public records provisions (Section 149.43) governing what constitutes a public record, exemptions, access, and procedures for redaction, fees for video records, and penalties/damages for noncompliance.
    • These sections define “public record,” “confidential law enforcement investigatory record,” and related terms; they also outline responsibilities of public offices to publish policies, provide access, and handle mandamus actions.
    • While detailed, these provisions largely reflect Ohio’s broader public records framework and do not appear solely tied to the competency provision, though they are included in the same bill.

  • Related court and probate jurisdiction (Sec. 2101.24; 2108.90)

    • The bill affects probate court and related jurisdictional language, including exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction provisions, potentially affecting proceedings involving guardianship, estates, and certain health-care related actions.

  • Vehicle for surgery to mental health provisions (Sec. 2945.38)

    • The bill includes changes to procedures around competence determinations and treatment, including situations where psychotropic drugs or treatment may be continued to maintain competency, with physician input and court approval processes.

Who is affected

  • Defendants in criminal cases who may be found incompetent to stand trial.
  • Courts (criminal and probate) that would have new or clarified authority to determine and administer competency-related treatment or institutionalization for mentally ill defendants or those with intellectual disabilities.
  • Medical professionals (attending physicians, mental health evaluation providers) involved in assessing competency and prescribing treatment.
  • Public offices and agencies, including records offices, law enforcement, and public records custodians, due to expanded public records provisions embedded in the same bill.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Timing and decision points
    • When competence is in question, courts could determine if mental illness or intellectual disability warrants a court-ordered treatment or institutionalization as part of competency proceedings.
    • The bill references procedures for continued evaluation and treatment to determine probability of restoration of competence within specified timeframes (e.g., within one year, with possible four-month extensions in certain cases), aligning with existing competency-related timelines.
  • Public records procedures (distinct but concurrent)
    • Establishes timelines for responding to public records requests, cost recovery for video records, redactions, and potential mandamus actions if records are not promptly produced.
    • Requires training for elected officials and adoption of public records policies, with posting and accessibility requirements.

Notes for readers

  • The core substantive impact is the enabling language for criminal courts to determine if a defendant’s mental illness or intellectual disability warrants court-ordered treatment or institutionalization in the context of competency to stand trial.
  • The bill also consolidates and updates a broad set of public records provisions, which would affect transparency and access to government records.
  • As introduced, the bill covers many technical amendments and reorganizations across numerous sections; outcomes will depend on subsequent committee amendments and passage.

If you’d like, I can provide a section-by-section mapping of the proposed changes to specific Ohio Revised Code sections and summarize potential practical implications for defendants, counsel, and courts.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.