## Facts

- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition alleging David Anthony Carey committed second-degree criminal sexual conduct under Michigan law.
- The prosecutor sought psychological evaluation of Carey’s competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility; the court ordered an evaluation.
- Carey had significant cognitive impairment, including a reported full-scale IQ around 52 and prior classification as “educable mentally impaired.”
- Defense counsel requested a competency hearing, asserting due process required it and that adult competency procedures should apply.
- At the competency hearing, psychologists described Carey’s limited ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel; the court restricted experts from giving an ultimate competency opinion.
- The trial court orally stated Carey was not competent because he could not comprehend the nature of the proceedings, but later issued a written ruling treating competency as irrelevant to the adjudicative phase of juvenile delinquency proceedings.
- Carey appealed, arguing due process prohibits adjudicating a juvenile while incompetent.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires a juvenile court to determine a respondent’s competency to stand trial when a bona fide claim of incompetence is raised before adjudication.
2. If a competency determination is required, whether the court must apply the adult competency standards and procedures in the Michigan Mental Health Code.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals held that due process requires a competency determination before the adjudicative phase when a non-frivolous claim of incompetence is raised.
- The court held that, absent a juvenile-specific statutory scheme, courts must employ the adult competency provisions and procedures of the Michigan Mental Health Code.
- The court reversed the lower court’s conclusion that competency is irrelevant in juvenile adjudications and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Adjudicating an individual while legally incompetent violates due process.
- Juvenile delinquency adjudications, though labeled civil, can impose serious liberty restraints; fundamental fairness requires competence during adjudication.
- The competency inquiry focuses on whether the respondent has sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings.
- When evidence raises a bona fide doubt about competency (including cognitive impairment and expert concerns), the court must conduct a competency determination before proceeding.
- In the absence of a juvenile competency statute, the Michigan Mental Health Code’s adult competency standards and procedures govern by analogy.

## Conclusion

The court required juvenile courts to determine competency before adjudication when incompetence is credibly raised and directed that adult Mental Health Code competency standards and procedures be used until a juvenile-specific framework exists.


In re Carey, 615 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000)