## Facts

- Theon Jackson, a 27-year-old deaf-mute with significant cognitive limitations and minimal ability to communicate, was charged in Indiana with two small-dollar robberies.
- Under Indiana’s criminal incompetency statute, the trial court appointed two psychiatrists to evaluate Jackson’s competency to stand trial.
- The evaluators concluded Jackson could not understand the charges or assist counsel; one described his prognosis for improvement as “rather dim.”
- Testimony indicated Indiana lacked facilities likely to help Jackson develop even minimal communication skills.
- The trial court found Jackson incompetent and ordered him committed to the state Department of Mental Health “until” the department certified him “sane,” resulting in potentially indefinite confinement.
- Jackson’s motion for a new trial argued there was no evidence of “insanity” and that the commitment functioned as a life sentence without a conviction; it was denied.
- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Jackson’s claim that the scheme denied equal protection compared to civil commitment procedures.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits a state to commit a defendant indefinitely based solely on incompetence to stand trial, without regard to the likelihood of attaining competency.
2. Whether equal protection is violated when a state applies a more permissive commitment standard and a more stringent release standard to charged but incompetent defendants than to similarly situated persons subject to civil commitment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- A defendant committed solely because of incapacity to proceed to trial may not be held beyond a reasonable period needed to determine whether there is a substantial probability of attaining competency in the foreseeable future.
- If no substantial probability exists, the State must either (a) initiate ordinary civil commitment proceedings that would be required to commit any other citizen, or (b) release the defendant.
- Even when restoration appears likely, continued commitment must be justified by progress toward attaining competency.
- Indiana’s scheme, as applied, denied equal protection by subjecting Jackson to a more burdensome commitment and release regime than that applied to others who were not charged with crimes.

## Legal Principles

- Due process limits incompetency-based pretrial commitment to a reasonable evaluative period; indefinite confinement cannot rest solely on inability to stand trial.
- Long-term confinement must rest on the same substantive standards and procedures used for civil commitment, not on criminal incompetency status alone.
- Equal protection bars a state from using a looser commitment threshold and a harsher release standard for incompetent criminal defendants than for comparable individuals committed under civil statutes.
- If competency restoration is not substantially probable in the foreseeable future, the State must proceed under ordinary civil commitment rules or release the defendant.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a state may not confine an incompetent defendant indefinitely merely because criminal charges are pending; after a reasonable period to assess restorability, the state must either pursue ordinary civil commitment under generally applicable standards or release the defendant, and it may not impose a harsher confinement-and-release regime on charged individuals than on similarly situated persons in civil commitment.


Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)