DUI - Pleaded Not Guilty by means of Incompetence

[KconleyK15]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

Won't go into the back story, I have other posts on here if needed for that.

My Ex got two dui's in three months, one she got off Nolle Prosse because it was deemed an illegal traffic stop. The other she pleaded "Not Guilty By Means of Incompetence", according to case search a week before the trial something was filed with the term NCR next to it. The case is still Active.


Any idea what she could be claiming? She has a mental illness and couldn't understand her actions were wrong? Admitting she has an alcohol issue and needs medical help?

Just curious as we have a child custody matter at hand, and obviously if any of the above is true, it's a big deal for the safety of my child.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

Won't go into the back story, I have other posts on here if needed for that.

My Ex got two dui's in three months, one she got off Nolle Prosse because it was deemed an illegal traffic stop. The other she pleaded "Not Guilty By Means of Incompetence", according to case search a week before the trial something was filed with the term NCR next to it. The case is still Active.


Any idea what she could be claiming? She has a mental illness and couldn't understand her actions were wrong? Admitting she has an alcohol issue and needs medical help?

Just curious as we have a child custody matter at hand, and obviously if any of the above is true, it's a big deal for the safety of my child.

There's no need to start another thread on this matter. Please keep your questions in your original thread: https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/two-duis-three-months-took-my-child-633589.html

 

[KconleyK15]

There's no need to start another thread on this matter. Please keep your questions in your original thread: https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/two-duis-three-months-took-my-child-633589.html

This is strictly about the DUI so I thought it should be under the DUI section, my apologies

 

[FlyingRon]

That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.

It's roughly like not guilty by reason of insanity. It means she wasn't mentally able to understand that she was breaking the law by her act. It's going to be a hard slog in a DUI case.

 

[KconleyK15]

That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.

It's roughly like not guilty by reason of insanity. It means she wasn't mentally able to understand that she was breaking the law by her act. It's going to be a hard slog in a DUI case.

Thanks for the quote, to show this site has a humor side to it, most are so serious and angry.

Just simply looking for answers, because obviously I'm not a lawyer so I appreciate your candid and comical response. If you can't know the right and wrong behind drinking a driving you should be able to take care of a child.

 

[FlyingRon]

Thanks for the quote, to show this site has a humor side to it, most are so serious and angry.

Just simply looking for answers, because obviously I'm not a lawyer so I appreciate your candid and comical response. If you can't know the right and wrong behind drinking a driving you should be able to take care of a child.

Well, my guess is she's going to show that the condition was temporary (perhaps isolated to the night she was caught). However, as I said it was a tough slog. As soon as she started drinking, that's all the mens rea she needs to realize that she may get into trouble when she was intoxicated. You can't argue "I was too drunk to realize it was a crime to drive." Similarly, getting behind the wheel, is enough mens rea for most offenses. If you were competent enough to get in the car and drive, you're considered competent enough to realize that you need to comply with traffic obligations.

I doubt it's going ot help in your custody case as I can't imagine it going to work in court. But frankly, the plea is really just "not guilty." The "I wasn't competent" is something you bring out as a defense once the trial starts.

 

[KconleyK15]

Well, my guess is she's going to show that the condition was temporary (perhaps isolated to the night she was caught). However, as I said it was a tough slog. As soon as she started drinking, that's all the mens rea she needs to realize that she may get into trouble when she was intoxicated. You can't argue "I was too drunk to realize it was a crime to drive." Similarly, getting behind the wheel, is enough mens rea for most offenses. If you were competent enough to get in the car and drive, you're considered competent enough to realize that you need to comply with traffic obligations.

I doubt it's going ot help in your custody case as I can't imagine it going to work in court. But frankly, the plea is really just "not guilty." The "I wasn't competent" is something you bring out as a defense once the trial starts.

Thanks for your reply, everything you said makes sense.

She has a long history with alcohol abuse, I was more hoping this was her way of saying she knows she has a problem that she can't control and would willingly get help.


As for the custody case, that's defeating to hear, as it's my daughters safety involved, and common sense in hearing that plea would say if you can't know right or wrong in drinking and getting behind the wheel how do you know the rest.

Frustrating but thank you

 

[NIV]

Thanks for the quote, to show this site has a humor side to it, most are so serious and angry.

Just simply looking for answers, because obviously I'm not a lawyer so I appreciate your candid and comical response. If you can't know the right and wrong behind drinking a driving you should be able to take care of a child.

I'm not going to look at the underlying facts as to why the claim is being made; but, DUI is a general intent crime. The mental state required to be found guilty is little more than you intended to drive in most states. The claim of incompetence has nothing to do with a defense to the crime alleged but to the trial. The claim has nothing to do with knowing the right and wrong behind drinking and driving; but if they can understand the nature/object of the proceedings against them OR if they can assist in one's defense.

I bet the claim, if successful, may accomplish whatever your goal in regards to a child. The reality is, you don't need to know if there is some subtle legal issue because if they are considered incompetent to stand trial, they will be committed for being dangerous and incompetent.

 

[KconleyK15]

I'm not going to look at the underlying facts as to why the claim is being made; but, DUI is a general intent crime. The mental state required to be found guilty is little more than you intended to drive in most states. The claim of incompetence has nothing to do with a defense to the crime alleged but to the trial. The claim has nothing to do with knowing the right and wrong behind drinking and driving; but if they can understand the nature/object of the proceedings against them OR if they can assist in one's defense.

I bet the claim, if successful, may accomplish whatever your goal in regards to a child. The reality is, you don't need to know if there is some subtle legal issue because if they are considered incompetent to stand trial, they will be committed for being dangerous and incompetent.

So you are saying her defense is that she is claiming incompetency to stand trial and is not competent to understand her punishment? And not that she has a mental issue from knowing the physical right and wrong of drinking and driving or a disease where she can't control it?

I already have primary custody of my daughter, have her about 90% of the time, I have asked her mom to sign something stating on the every other weekend visits that her mom not drive and the grandparents be responsible for the transportation. My daughters grandparents are supposed to be supervising the entire visit, but often I've found that her mom takes her to the park or other places and drives her there alone; so I am just trying to protect from those instances where she can't drive her anymore.

 

[KconleyK15]

I'm not going to look at the underlying facts as to why the claim is being made; but, DUI is a general intent crime. The mental state required to be found guilty is little more than you intended to drive in most states. The claim of incompetence has nothing to do with a defense to the crime alleged but to the trial. The claim has nothing to do with knowing the right and wrong behind drinking and driving; but if they can understand the nature/object of the proceedings against them OR if they can assist in one's defense.

I bet the claim, if successful, may accomplish whatever your goal in regards to a child. The reality is, you don't need to know if there is some subtle legal issue because if they are considered incompetent to stand trial, they will be committed for being dangerous and incompetent.

One more question, could she be claiming some sort of distress in life as to why she can't stand trial right now? Could it be a method of trying to extend the date of trial out longer and maybe the cop not being available then?

 

[FlyingRon]

No, distinct things. As I said the incompetency plea refers to the act of the crime. Competency to stand trial is a different matter and that's even a tougher thing to assert.

 

[NIV]

http://www.courts.state.md.us/reference/pdfs/comp72006rev.pdf

 

[KconleyK15]

http://www.courts.state.md.us/reference/pdfs/comp72006rev.pdf

Thanks, this is pointing to the trial again, where above the other user talked about it being about the action not the trial. That is why I am confused.

Guess I should just let it go and stop obsessing over knowing what happened, just obviously worried about my daughter.

 

[FlyingRon]

Again competency to stand trial is DISTINCT from a plea of "not guilty by reason of incompetence."

 

[KconleyK15]

Again competency to stand trial is DISTINCT from a plea of "not guilty by reason of incompetence."

Thank You

Above what I am reading from NIV in that document is all about the Incompetent to stand Trial