The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of Hardesty on Thursday, October 9, 2014.
Involuntary Administration of Medication to Render Defendant Competent to Stand Trial.
Hardesty was sent to the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo (CMHIP) after he was found incompetent to proceed in two criminal cases filed against him. While at CMHIP, Hardesty refused to take antipsychotic medications. The People petitioned to have the medications involuntarily administered to render him competent to proceed in the criminal cases. The district court granted the People’s petition following a hearing in which it made a number of findings by clear and convincing evidence.
On appeal, Hardesty argued that the People failed to establish the legal requirements for administration of medications under Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003).The Court of Appeals disagreed.
Under Sell, a court must find the defendant: (1) is facing “serious criminal charges”; (2) the involuntary medication will significantly further the state’s interest in prosecution; (3) administration of the drugs is substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial; (4) administration of the drugs is substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defendant’s ability to assist counsel in conducting a trial defense; (5) involuntary medication is necessary to further the identified governmental interests; (6) less intrusive means for administering the drugs must be considered; (7) any alternative, less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results; and (8) administration of the drugs is medically appropriate.
Hardesty challenged the first, second, and fifth factors listed above. On the first issue, Hardesty was charged with “[s]hoplifting that resulted in an assault and as a result then [became] a [r]obbery.” The Court held that robbery, as charged here, was a “serious” crime. The Court further concluded that, given the seriousness of the robbery charge, the government had a significant interest in restoring Hardesty to competency so that he could be tried.
Hardesty also argued that no evidence was presented to prove that ordering involuntary medication was necessary to further the state’s interest in prosecution. The lower court found by clear and convincing evidence that Hardesty was unlikely to be restored to competency without the medications. This finding was not clearly erroneous. The order was affirmed.