Bankers Hill Shooter Has Hearing Pushed Back for Further Evaluation

On November 4, 2015, Titus Colbert broke into his ex-girlfriend’s apartment in Bankers Hill and began firing rounds at law enforcement officers, prompting the evacuation of nearby buildings, road closures, and even the suspension of incoming flights passing overhead. After a five hour standoff, he eventually surrendered and is now facing up to 105 years in prison for three counts of attempted murder.

During his first court hearing on November 13th, he was removed from court for repeatedly interrupting the judge by singing and claiming to be a member of the Illuminati. In response to this removal from court, his public defender requested that proceedings in his case be revisited on January 6th, after there had been enough time to evaluate his mental health and competency to stand trial.

After his hearing yesterday, which came with even more interruptions, a new hearing date of February 17th was set because the doctor evaluating Colbert’s mental health records required more time to conduct further investigation and prepare his report.

In cases like these, where a violent criminal’s mental health is a glaring question mark, I wanted to find out what methods are used to determine mental competency. I reached out to local San Diego criminal attorney George Gedulin who was kind enough to outline some of the main tests that are used today.

M’Naghten Rule

“The M’Naughten Rule is still the legal standard applied in more than half the states with regards to a plea of not guilty by insanity (NGI). It is an established legal concept that was brought into American Law from the English courts. While the interpretation of the concept has changed over time, there are two basic tenets of the rule:

1) During the offense, did the person suffer from a mental disease or defect that made them incapable of knowing or understanding the nature of what they were doing?

2) If they did know what they were doing, did the mental defect make them incapable of understanding it was wrong?

The “wrongfulness” question here is one of a moral wrong - were they unable to understand it was wrong in the larger societal context, not simply a question of not understanding the legality.”

Irresistible Impulse Test

“This test came into use after M’Naughten and was an attempt to improve and clarify the older rule. The test focused more on the impact on a person’s self-control and self-will that resulted from a mental disease or disorder and if the defect made the person incapable of controlling an impulse to commit a crime as a result. This test is far broader than the M’Naughten and was rejected by most states.”

Durham Rule

“The Durham Rule developed as an outgrowth of the Irresistible Impulse Test. This rule adopted the concept from a Federal case wherein a defendant would not be criminally responsible for his unlawful act if it was the product of a mental disease or defect. However, there was no clear way for courts or juries to interpret what it meant for an unlawful act to be the product or consequence of a mental defect so it is only used in the State of New Hampshire today.”

ALI Model Penal Code Test

“This rule is applied in almost all states that do not use the M’Naughten Rule. The rule states: A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time, such conduct was a result of mental disease or a defect which caused an inability to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of law. Thus, the rule incorporates pieces of M’Naughten and the Irresistible Impulse Test.”