FILED Case No.: 18-10DC-0880 Dept. No.: 1 SEP 17 AMIN: 22 Bis deco et onan SUE SEVON social security number of any person. WL “Dg IN THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CHURCHILL THE STATE OF NEVADA, Plaintiff, ORDER AFTER COMPETENCY vs. HEARING JOHN KELLEY O'CONNOR, Defendant, Decision and Order This matter came before the Court for a Competency Hearing on September 4, 2018. ‘The State was represented by Chief Deputy District Attorney, LANE R. MILLS. The Defendant was present and was represented by RICHARD DAVIES, ESQ. The Court held the Competency Hearing upon receiving two (2) evaluations from Lake’s Crossing Center. Lake's Crossing Center is the State of Nevada's forensic facility, which is a secure facility of the Division of Public and Behavioral Health of the Department of Health and Human Services for offenders and defendants with mental disorders. See NRS 178.39845 and NRS 175.539. Findings of Fact On July 25, 2018, Mr. O*Connor was charge with First Degree Murder With The Use Of A Firearm To Victim 60 Years Of Age Or Older Or Against Vulnerable Person, Battery With A Deadly Weapon Causing Substantial Bodily Harm To Victim 60 Years Of Age Or Older Or Against Vulnerable Person, and Assault With A Deadly Weapon. The Justice Court appointed Mr. Davies to represent Mr. O’Connor. On July 26, 2018, Mr. Davies requested a competency evaluation to be conducted on Mr. O’Connor pursuant to NRS 178.405. All Page | of 8awn Cw aan 10 ul 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e ‘matters and hearing were suspended until a competency evaluation was completed to determine if Mr. O’Connor was able to stand trial pursuant to NRS 178.400(2). This Court received written reports from Lake’s Crossing Center dated August 22, 2018 pursuant to NRS 178.415(2). ‘The Lake’s Crossing Competency Evaluation included a Psychiatric Evaluation from Dr. Zuchowski and a Psycholegal Evaluation of Competence by Dr. Moulton. The evaluations complies with the statutory requirements of NRS 178.415(1) ince Dr. Zuchowski is a medical doctor psychiatrist and Dr. Moulton is a licensed psychologist. ‘The Lake’s Crossing Competency Evaluations states that Mr. O’Connor was evaluated and observed at their forensic facility since August 13, 2018. In the Lake’s Crossing Competency Evaluation, Drs. Zuchowski and Moulton opined that Mr. O’Connor presently docs not meet the criteria to be considered competent to proceed adjudication. Drs. Zuchowski and Moulton opined there is the substantial probability of achieving competency in the foreseeable future with treatment pursuant to NRS 178,399, However, competency is not likely to be achieved unless Mr. O°Connor is treated with the appropriate psychotropic medication in order to assist in treating the symptoms of his psychosis. Drs. Zuchowski and Moulton opined that without the administration of the appropriate psychotropic medication then Mr. O°Connor will be incompetent without the probability of achieving competency in the foreseeable future. Drs. Zuchowski and Moulton both opined psychotropic medication is necessary to restore Mr. O’Connor to competency. Dr. Zuchowski stated that Mr. O°Connor insisted that he did not want medication, except if it was to help him sleep. Mr. O'Connor is reluctantly agreeing to a trial of some medication at bedtime. Dr. Zuchowski’s evaluation requested to involuntary administration of medication given Mr. O’Connor’s reluctance and need for antipsychotic treatment. Similarly, Mr. Moulton stated that Mr. 0’Connor is unlikely to accept treatment on his own volition, as Mr. O"Connor does not believe he has a mental illness. Mr. Moulton stated that if Mr. O’Connor receives effective pharmacological treatment that there is a substantial probability of his being restored to competency. mM Page 2 of 820 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e Accordingly, this Court set a hearing pursuant to NRS 178.415(3). ‘The Competency Hearing was held on September 4, 2018. At the Competency Hearing, this Court heard from both parties, testimony from Drs. Zuchowski and Moulton, and considered the Lake’s Crossing, Competency Evaluations. This Decision and Order that follows finds that Mr. O°Connor is presently incompetent to stand trial, but there is a substantial probability that the Mr. O°Connor can be restored to competency upon receiving treatment including the involuntary administration of medication as outlined in the Lake’s Crossing Competency Evaluations in order to restore Mr. O’Connor to competency. Presently Incompetent In Nevada, the Legislature has devised a procedure for determining competency to stand trial, thereby preventing the prosecution of mentally incompetent defendants. NRS 178.400 et seq. NRS 178.400(2)(a-c) describes fitness to stand trial as a person's present ability to (1) understand the nature of the offense charged; (2) understand the nature and purpose of the court proceedings; and (3) aid and assist the person’s counsel in the defense at any time during the proceedings with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. ! Here, Dr. Zuchowski opines that Mr. O’Connor does not meet the fitness to stand trial on all three (3) prongs. Dr. Zuchowski testified that while Mr. O°Connor has a superficially understands the nature of the charges and the purpose of court proceedings, that Mr. O’Connor is influence by his delusions to a degree rendering him unable to meet the threshold of competence. Here, Dr. Moulton opines that Mr. O’Connor meets the fitness to stand trial on the first two (2) prongs, namely understand the nature of the charges and understand the purpose of the court proceedings, However, Dr. Moulton findings are that Mr. 0’Connor presently inadequate ability to assist his attorney. Dr. Moulton opines based upon his interview with Mr. 0°Connor and as illustrated within his Psycholegal Evaluation of Competence that Mr. O’Connor’s * This measurement of competence is recognized and accepted by Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788 (1960) and also Scarbo v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 125 Nev. 118, 122, 206 P.3d 975, 977-78 (2008). Page 3 of 8