Relating To The Examination Of Criminal Defendants.
Summary
HB397 amends two provisions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing court-ordered mental health examinations of criminal defendants: one relating to penal responsibility and one relating to fitness to proceed. The bill changes the payer for private-sector examiners from the State to the judiciary and sets the compensation at $2,000 per examination, with that amount covering the examination itself, the written report, consultation, preparation, testimony, and court attendance. The measure applies to examiners who are not acting as part of their normal duties as state or county employees and who are not retained by a nonindigent defendant.
The bill also includes an appropriation from general revenues for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027, to be expended by the judiciary to carry out the new compensation requirement. As drafted, it is part of the judiciary package and is intended to standardize and fund payment for private examiners involved in criminal competency and responsibility evaluations. The effective date is listed as July 1, 3000, which appears to function as a placeholder rather than a practical implementation date.
Impact
HB397 would shift the statutory obligation for paying certain private examiners from the State to the judiciary and establish a fixed compensation rate of $2,000 for each covered evaluation. It would amend sections 704-404 and 704-407.5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, affecting the process for paying professionals who assess a defendant’s penal responsibility or fitness to proceed in criminal cases. The bill also creates a general-fund appropriation to support these payments, thereby affecting judiciary budgeting and administration rather than changing the substantive standards for competency or responsibility determinations.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text and report description, the measure appears administrative and technical in nature, aimed at clarifying compensation and funding for court-appointed examiners. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the bill may have been treated as part of a routine judiciary package, but that cannot be confirmed from the available record.
Contention
The main policy issue in the bill is who should bear the cost of private examiner compensation—the State under existing language or the judiciary under the proposed amendment—and whether the fixed $2,000 amount is sufficient and appropriate for the work required. Another possible point of concern is the scope of the fee, since the amount is stated to include not only the examination and report but also consultation, preparation, testimony, and court attendance. No specific legislators, agencies, or stakeholder positions are documented in the provided materials, so any contention is inferred from the statutory changes rather than from recorded testimony.