State v. Hurst
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtOwens, J.
¶1 John Hurst was charged with a felony, but the criminal proceedings against him were stayed because the trial court determined that he was not competent to stand trial. Hurst’s lack of competence twice resulted in his commitment to a 90-day mental health treatment and restoration period. As Hurst failed to regain competency during either of these periods, the State sought a third and final mental health treatment and restoration period of up to 180 days. This case concerns the standard of proof required to commit an incompetent criminal defendant charged with a felony to a third mental…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Dowling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. ColeyWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. P.E.T.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- State v. Bao Dinh DangCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- State v. P.E.T.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- State of Maine v. Travis R. GerrierSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2018
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.