State v. Hayes: Privacy of the Mind and the Incompetent Defendant

Although numerous jurisdictions have faced the question of whether a criminal defendant can be considered competent to stand trial when his competency is medically induced, the question of whether the state may force the accused to take competency-inducing medication during trial over the pretrial objections of the defense is relatively novel. Confronted with that issue recently, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in State v. Hayes held that the state could compel a criminal defendant to take psychotropic drugs' necessary to maintain competency if the jury was informed about the use of medication. It is clear from the New Hampshire court's opinion and the briefs of counsel that the fundamental constitutional implications of drug-induced competency were considered only summarily. The factual background of the case, however, presents a unique setting in which the constitutionality of compelled competency might have been explored, had the court and counsel seen fit. Accordingly, this Note departs from the traditional format of a law review case note by using State v. Hayes as a touchstone for discussion of the serious questions that arise when competency-inducing drugs are forcibly administered to criminal defendants. In light of an emerging constitutional right to refuse treatment, an attempt is made to articulate the basis for a constitutional right to refuse competency-inducing psychotropic medication, and to examine the tensions which may arise between the interests of the state in trying criminal defendants and those of the accused in freely refusing treatment when competency to stand trial can only be attained through such treatment.