On April 8, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Somerset County case of State v. J.H.P. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-4 concerned whether the State could compel a defendant to take medication to restore their competency.
Judge Rose wrote for the Appellate Division in relevant part: In the present matter, the motion judge generally acknowledged “all side effects” of the medication could not be predicted. In our view, however, the record does not demonstrate the administration of Risperdal or another psychotropic drug will not “alter his demeanor in a manner that will prejudice his reactions and presentation in the courtroom” or “render him unable or unwilling to assist counsel.” See id. at 142. Although Dr. Young testified defendant’s medical records revealed he had not suffered “severe side effects” during the prior administration of Risperdal, she did not elaborate further.
Additionally, Dr. Collins opined she would “start” treatment with Risperdal but there is no evidence in the record defendant’s treating physician would prescribe that drug. Regardless, Dr. Collins acknowledged medication, such as Risperdal, could cause sedation and movement disorders such as ticks and tremors. Beyond the potential for these side effects, however, the record is devoid of any expert opinion concerning “how the medication is likely to affect defendant’s ability to communicate with counsel, to testify, to react rapidly to events in the trial, and to express emotions before the jury.” Nor is there any evidence in the record concerning the effects of the contemplated medication on defendant’s “physical appearance.” As we recognized in R.G., all these side effects impact “a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
We therefore conclude the motion judge’s finding on the second part of the second Sell prong was not “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Because the State failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence it was substantially unlikely that the side effects of antipsychotic mediation will interfere with defendant’s ability to assist his attorney and the presentation of his defense, we conclude the State failed to satisfy the second part of the second Sell prong. Having done so, we need not consider the remaining Sell factors.
The Sell test appears to permit forced medication with advances in the safety of the medication. This opinion also provides a roadmap for the record that prosecutors and their expert witnesses must make to succeed in compelling a defendant to take medication to restore competency. Incompetent defendants will generally be held in state hospital. Competent defendants can be sent to prison upon conviction.
