DC · rules
D.C. Super. Ct. Habilitation R. 4
Commitment of Respondents Found Incompetent to Participate in
Criminal Proceedings
(a) PETITION FOR COMMITMENT. The District of Columbia may file a petition for
commitment under D.C. Code § 7-1303.04(b-1) for a person found incompetent in a
criminal case and not likely to regain competence to stand trial or participate in
sentencing or transfer proceedings. The petition must be filed within 30 days of that
finding, unless the court in the criminal case extends the time period for extraordinary
cause under D.C. Code § 7-1303.12a(a).
(b) FILING AND SERVICE. The District of Columbia must file the petition and serve a
copy on the following parties:
(1) the respondent;
(2) the respondent’s counsel in the criminal case;
(3) the respondent’s advocate, if appointed;
(4) the respondent’s court appointed guardian, if any;
(5) the Office of the United States Attorney; and
(6) the judge or magistrate judge assigned to the criminal case.
(c) CONTENTS OF PETITION. The petition must contain the following information:
(1) the respondent’s name, date of birth, and home address;
(2) the crime(s) of violence or sex offense(s) and the criminal case(s) in which the
court has found the respondent to be incompetent;
(3) a statement that the respondent has an intellectual disability and is believed to be
in need of commitment, including facts demonstrating why the respondent is likely “to
cause injury to others as a result of the person’s intellectual disability” as defined in D.C.
Code § 7-1301.03(2C);
(4) the date the respondent was found incompetent and not likely to regain
competence in the criminal case(s); and
(5) the respondent’s current placement and legal status, including prior and current
commitments.
(d) COMMENCING COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS. When a petition is filed, the court
must:
(1) enter the petition on the docket;
(2) assign counsel to represent the respondent;
(3) appoint an advocate for the respondent, unless declined;
(4) after consulting with the parties’ counsel, promptly schedule an initial status
hearing;
(5) inform the respondent and the respondent’s counsel in the habilitation proceedings
of the right to request a trial by jury or by the court and that such request must be made
no later than the initial status hearing;
(6) send copies of the petition, any material accompanying the petition, an order
containing notice of the status hearing date, and notice of the assignment of counsel to:
(A) the parties listed in Rule 4(b);
(B) the respondent’s counsel in the habilitation proceedings; and
(C) the attorney from the District of Columbia Department on Disability Services
who filed the petition; and
(7) send copies of the comprehensive evaluation report and the respondent’s
habilitation plan, when filed, to the respondent’s counsel in the habilitation proceedings,
the respondent’s advocate, and the Department’s attorney who filed the petition.
(e) TIMING FOR PREPARING AND FILING COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION
REPORT AND INDIVIDUAL HABILITATION PLAN.
(1) In general. The comprehensive evaluation report and the individual habilitation
plan must be provided to the respondent and the respondent’s counsel in the
habilitation proceedings at least 10 days before the commitment hearing.
(2) If filed with the Petition. If the petition was accompanied by a comprehensive
evaluation report and individual habilitation plan, copies of the report and plan must be
provided to the respondent and the respondent’s counsel in the habilitation proceedings
within 3 days of the petition’s filing.
(3) Ordering a Comprehensive Evaluation and Individual Habilitation Plan. Except as
provided in Rule 4(e)(4), the court must order the Department to:
(A) conduct a comprehensive evaluation and prepare an evaluation report;
(B) prepare an individual habilitation plan;
(C) file the report and plan no later than 10 days before the commitment hearing;
and
(D) provide copies of the report and plan to the respondent and the respondent’s
counsel in the habilitation proceedings no later than 10 days before the commitment
hearing.
(4) Exception. The court need not order a comprehensive evaluation and individual
habilitation plan under Rule 4(e)(3) if the petition is accompanied by a comprehensive
evaluation report based on an evaluation performed within 6 months before the hearing
and an individual habilitation plan prepared within 30 days of the filing of the petition.
(f) INITIAL STATUS HEARING. At the initial status hearing, the court must set a date for
a commitment hearing. If the respondent requests a judge or jury trial, the court must
set a commitment hearing date in accordance with the requirements of D.C. Code § 7-
1303.12a for placement during the pendency of the petition and commitment
proceedings. The court may also set pretrial hearings as necessary to resolve any
pretrial issues, including issues arising under D.C. Code § 7-1303.12a.
(g) COMMITMENT HEARING PROCEDURES WHEN TRIAL IS REQUESTED. The
following rules apply in a trial conducted under D.C. Code § 7-1304.06a:
(1) All testimony must be under oath.
(2) The District of Columbia has the burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that the respondent is likely to “cause injury to others as a result of the
person’s intellectual disability” as defined in D.C. Code § 7-1301.03(2C) if allowed to
remain at liberty.
(3) The respondent has the right to be present during the trial and to testify, but must
not be compelled to testify, and must be so advised by the court.
(4) The parties have the right to call witnesses, present evidence, and cross-examine
opposing witnesses.
(5) Jury Verdict or Court Finding. The jury, or the court in a bench trial, must deliver a
separate verdict or finding on:
(A) whether the respondent has an intellectual disability; and,
(B) if the respondent is found to have an intellectual disability, whether, because of
such disability, the respondent is likely to cause injury to others if allowed to remain at
liberty.
(6) Disposition Following Verdict or Finding.
(A) If the court or jury finds that the respondent is likely to cause injury to others as a
result of intellectual disability if allowed to remain at liberty, the court must order
commitment for placement in a facility that would be the least restrictive means of
providing the habilitation indicated by the respondent's habilitation plan and of
preventing the respondent from causing injury to others as a result of the respondent’s
intellectual disability.
(B) If the court or jury finds that the respondent should not be committed, the court
must dismiss the petition.
(h) COMMITMENT HEARING PROCEDURES ON WAIVER OF TRIAL.
(1) If the respondent waives trial rights, the court must make findings as to whether
the respondent meets the standard for commitment under D.C. Code § 7- 1304.06a.
(2) If the court finds that the respondent should be committed, the court must order
commitment for placement in a facility that will provide appropriate habilitation in
accordance with the definitions of facility and habilitation in D.C. Code § 7-1301.03.
(3) If the court finds that the respondent should not be committed, the court must
dismiss the petition.
(i) PLACEMENT FOLLOWING COMMITMENT BY JUDGE OR JURY. If the court finds
that the respondent should be committed to the Department, the court must order
placement in a facility that would be the least restrictive means of providing the
habilitation indicated by the respondent’s individual habilitation plan and of preventing
the respondent from causing injury to others as a result of the respondent’s intellectual
disability.
History
COMMENT TO 2026 AMENDMENTS This rule was formerly designated as Rule 4B. Section (a) has been amended to clarify that the court presiding over the criminal case may grant the extension for extraordinary cause and to cite the applicable D.C. Code provision. Former subsection (b)(4), which addressed a respondent’s option to request an independent comprehensive evaluation and habilitation plan, has been deleted in light of the repeal of D.C. Code § 7-1304.04. New section (b)(4) clarifies that the petition must be served on the respondent’s court appointed guardian. The rule also has been amended to update the name of the relevant District of Columbia agency. Department on Disability Services has been substituted for Department of Human Services. (In the event of a future name change, references to the Department on Disability Services should be construed to refer to the successor agency, if practicable, until the rules are updated.) As used in these rules, the term “Department” refers to the Department on Disability Services unless stated otherwise. Finally, the rule has been amended to conform with Superior Court Administrative Order No. 11-01, Change of Name to the Mental Health and Habilitation Branch (Jan. 5, 2011), and the general restyling of the Superior Court rules. Former Rule 4A, which addressed commitment of persons who are not competent to refuse commitment, has been deleted in light of the enactment of the Disability Services Reform Amendment Act of 2018, D.C. Law 22-93, 65 D.C. Reg. 2823 (2018), which ended new commitments other than commitments of persons found incompetent in a criminal case. Former Rule 4C has been redesignated as Rule 16. COMMENT TO 2005 AMENDMENTS [Rule 4(h)(1)] does not specify the means by which the Court should ascertain the appropriateness of any waiver of trial rights. The Court will make that determination upon consideration of the totality of circumstances presented by the particular case.
Provenance
- Source
- dccourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-14
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
12cd9168b35e65dbe5e02f58e7a759d2a5be0bdc1ff53fd942b6af0e1724985e
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.