Relating To The Examination Of Criminal Defendants.
Summary
SB264 amends Hawaii’s criminal procedure statutes governing court-ordered examinations of defendants’ mental condition, specifically evaluations of fitness to proceed and penal responsibility. The bill sets a uniform compensation rate of $2,000 for private-sector persons who make or assist in these examinations, and specifies that this amount covers the examination itself, report drafting, consultation, preparation, testimony, and court attendance. It also clarifies that the compensation applies to examiners who are not retained by a nonindigent defendant and who are not already performing the work as part of their regular duties as state or county employees designated by the director of health.
The bill further shifts payment responsibility from the State to the judiciary for these examiner costs and appropriates $975,000 from general revenues for each of fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to fund the change. The measure is part of the Judiciary Package and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2025. In practical terms, it affects the administration and funding of criminal competency and responsibility evaluations in Hawaii courts, as well as the private professionals who provide those services.
Impact
SB264 amends sections 704-404 and 704-407.5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to change who pays for certain criminal defendant examinations and to establish a fixed compensation amount for private examiners. The bill moves the payment obligation from the State to the judiciary, and it creates a recurring appropriation to support those payments. It affects criminal defendants whose cases require mental health or competency evaluations, private examiners who perform those assessments, and the judiciary’s budget and administrative responsibilities.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan or cross-chamber support for the bill, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee approval at each recorded stage. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed it 5-0, the Senate Ways and Means Committee passed it 13-0, and both House and Senate conference votes were unanimous in the records provided. No committee transcripts were provided, but the vote pattern indicates the measure was generally viewed favorably and as a routine administrative or funding adjustment within the judiciary package.
Contention
No major opposition is reflected in the available record. The main policy issue appears to be the allocation of costs for court-ordered examinations and the establishment of a standardized $2,000 fee for private examiners. Any potential concern would likely center on the fiscal impact of the appropriation and whether the fixed rate adequately compensates examiners while controlling public costs, but the recorded votes do not show significant disagreement among legislators.