By Judge Matthew Walker
With mental illness prominent in the current public consciousness, it is important for judges presiding over criminal dockets to remember that the defendants in front of us may not meet the criteria to be considered competent. Due process is a cornerstone of both our federal and state constitutions, and it includes ensuring that those facing criminal prosecution are able to understand and participate in the process.
At the same time, our state-wide competency system currently struggles to handle the volume of criminal defendants ordered into formal competency proceedings. This often results in a different kind of due process concern, with those defendants serving lengthy terms of incarceration prior to treatment availability. One of the ways to address these conflicting considerations is for judges to familiarize themselves with the threshold requirements for entering into the competency system to begin with.
NRS 178.405 requires that, when doubt arises as to a defendant’s ability to proceed, a court must suspend all proceedings until the question of competence is determined. However, this does not mean that in every circumstance where doubt is raised, a court must hold formal competency proceedings. Instead, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Nevada, in Melchor-Gloria v. State, 660 P.2d 109 (Nev. 1983), only in cases where there is sufficient evidence for that doubt to rise to the level of reasonable doubt is the accused entitled to a full competency hearing. The presiding court retains discretion to evaluate all the evidence in front of it to determine whether a reasonable doubt has been raised. See Lipsitz v. State, 135 Nev. 131 (2019).
Under Melchor-Gloria, this evidence can come from “any source,” including either of the parties or the court’s own observations and canvases. If, after reviewing the available evidence, the court finds that the doubt raised is not reasonable, no further competency considerations need to be made, the suspension can be lifted, and prosecution can proceed. In these circumstances, the parties will be free to plea bargain to address any treatment needs the defendant may have without the delay that the, often ponderous, formal competency process may have brought about.
Ultimately, the presiding judge has an obligation to use his or her discretion appropriately and order full competency proceedings, if warranted. But, awareness of this discretion is the first step to making sure that a defendant’s rights are being respected, while, at the same time, ensuring that the competency system’s resources are being utilized efficiently.
About the author
Judge Matthew Walker serves in Department 1 for the Las Vegas Municipal Court. In 2016, Judge Walker created the Psychiatric Stabilization and Treatment program to address the large volume of incarcerated defendants who are experiencing mental health crisis and need stabilization and treatment. Judge Walker presides over the Veteran’s Treatment Court, where he leverages his knowledge and experience regarding mental health treatment to assist criminal defendants who are military veterans and suffer from substance use and mental illness.
About the article
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (Nov. 2025), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association. See https://clarkcountybar.org/about/member-benefits/communique-2025/communique-nov-2025/. The printed magazine will be mailed out to CCBA members on October 30, 2025.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2025 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.