In re Carey

David Anthony Carey (defendant) was a juvenile with an IQ low enough to place him in the lowest 1 percent of juveniles his age. A petition was filed in juvenile court alleging that Carey had committed criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. Prior to an adjudicative hearing, the prosecutor filed a motion seeking a determination of Carey’s competency to be tried and his criminal responsibility. The juvenile court granted the motion, and Carey was evaluated by a psychologist. After the evaluation, Carey’s attorney filed a motion for a competency hearing, asserting that Carey had a due-process right to have a competency hearing and that the laws for establishing the competency of adults in criminal proceedings should be used. Michigan had not established rules or procedures for determining the competency of juveniles. The juvenile court permitted the competency hearing. The psychologists who testified were not allowed to state whether Carey was competent to be tried. Rather, the psychologists testified regarding Carey’s IQ and their concerns regarding whether Carey would understand much of the proceedings or be able to assist his attorney. The juvenile court doubted the appropriateness of competency determinations in juvenile court but ultimately decided that Carey was not competent to undergo a trial because he would not comprehend the nature of the proceedings. Despite this ruling, the juvenile court later issued a written opinion indicating that competency determinations had no relevance to the adjudicative phase of delinquency proceedings. Carey appealed. On appeal, Carey argued that due process required that he not be forced to undergo the adjudicative stage of juvenile-delinquency hearings while not competent to stand trial.