Nevada AB 467: What the New Forensic Mental Health Law Means for Criminal Defense Cases Involving Competency to Stand Trial

Nevada Assembly Bill 467, which took effect July 1, 2026, revises the rules for competency restoration -- the process by which defendants found incompetent to stand trial are treated until they can participate in their own defense. The law allows private organizations to contract with the state to operate competency restoration programs inside county jails and detention facilities, potentially reducing the backlog that leaves some defendants waiting months in jail. Understanding how these changes work is essential for families whose loved one faces a competency determination.

What Competency to Stand Trial Means in Nevada Criminal Cases

Nevada law, consistent with federal constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court, prohibits trying a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. Competency in the legal sense means the ability to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings and to assist in one's own defense. A defendant who, because of a mental health condition or other impairment, cannot understand what is happening in court or cannot communicate meaningfully with their attorney does not meet the legal threshold for trial.

When defense counsel, the prosecution, or the court raises a doubt about a defendant's competency, the court is required to suspend criminal proceedings and order a competency evaluation. The evaluation is typically conducted by a licensed mental health professional who assesses the defendant's understanding and communicative capacity. If the evaluation concludes that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the court enters a finding of incompetency and the criminal case is suspended. The defendant is then referred for competency restoration -- a treatment process designed to bring the defendant to the legal threshold for trial.

Competency restoration does not mean the defendant is being treated for an underlying mental illness with the goal of eliminating the illness. The specific goal of restoration is narrower: to bring the defendant's understanding of the proceedings and their ability to assist counsel to the level required by law. The legal and treatment distinctions matter, because the outcome of a restoration program is a competency re-evaluation that determines whether the defendant can now be tried, not a clinical decision about the defendant's overall mental health status.

What AB 467 Changes and Why the Backlog Matters

Before AB 467, Nevada's competency restoration resources were limited to state-run psychiatric facilities and county-operated programs. The backlog of defendants found incompetent who are waiting for placement in a restoration program has been a persistent issue in Nevada's criminal justice system, as it has been in many states. Defendants found incompetent remain in county jails or detention facilities while awaiting a restoration placement -- meaning they are being held in a carceral environment without being tried, convicted, or acquitted, sometimes for many months.

AB 467 addresses this by allowing the Administrator of the Division of Public and Behavioral Health to contract with private organizations to operate competency restoration programs within county jails or detention centers. Rather than requiring transfer to an external facility, the restoration programming can now be brought to where the defendant already is. This removes a significant logistical and capacity constraint: the state no longer has to have an open bed in an external facility before restoration can begin.

The law passed the Nevada Assembly 42-0, which signals that the problem it addresses is recognized across party lines. The bipartisan support reflects both the humanitarian concern -- defendants waiting months in jail for restoration are in legal limbo -- and the practical concern about the criminal justice system's efficiency. Restoration backlogs delay cases, consume judicial resources, and impose significant costs on county jails. Expanding the pipeline through contracted private providers is a practical response to a structural capacity problem.

How Competency Issues Can Affect a Criminal Defense Case

For families whose loved one is facing criminal charges and who have concerns about their ability to understand the proceedings or communicate with their attorney, raising a competency question at the right time is important. Defense counsel has both the right and the professional obligation to raise a competency doubt when the facts support it. If the defendant is ultimately found incompetent, the criminal proceedings are suspended -- no trial, no plea, no sentencing -- until restoration is achieved.

This does not mean the charges go away. If restoration is achieved, the criminal proceedings resume from the point where they were suspended. If restoration is not achievable within a reasonable time -- a determination that Nevada courts revisit periodically -- the charges may eventually be dismissed on due process grounds, though the specific standards for this vary by jurisdiction and charge severity. An attorney must track the restoration proceedings closely and advocate for the defendant's rights throughout the period of suspension.

AB 467's expansion of competency restoration capacity may mean that defendants found incompetent spend less time waiting for restoration services to begin. Whether that ultimately benefits a specific defendant depends on the facts of the case, the nature of the impairment, and what happens at the competency re-evaluation after restoration. Freedom First Criminal Defense handles Nevada criminal cases where mental health and competency issues are part of the picture, and offers free consultations to families navigating these complex intersections.

6 Things Families Should Know When Competency Is at Issue in a Nevada Case

Competency determinations introduce a separate legal track that runs alongside the criminal case. These are the most important things families and defendants need to understand.

1. Only defense counsel, the prosecution, or the court can raise a competency doubt: Family members who are concerned about a loved one's ability to participate in their defense should communicate that concern to defense counsel, who will evaluate it and decide whether to raise it formally with the court. The defendant themselves cannot unilaterally invoke incompetency.
2. A competency evaluation is not a trial or sentencing hearing: The evaluation determines only whether the defendant currently meets the legal standard for competency. It does not address guilt or innocence, and the results are not evidence of the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offense.
3. Found incompetent does not mean found not guilty: Incompetency to stand trial addresses the defendant's current capacity, not what happened during the charged conduct. Charges are suspended, not dismissed, when a defendant is found incompetent. They resume if competency is restored.
4. Restoration timelines have historically been long in Nevada: Before AB 467, wait times for restoration placement could stretch for months due to limited bed capacity in state facilities. AB 467 may reduce that backlog, but defendants and families should expect the process to take time regardless.
5. Mental health records may become relevant to both the competency and criminal tracks: Treatment records, prior psychiatric evaluations, and medication history can all be relevant to a competency evaluation. Defense attorneys must carefully manage what records are disclosed and to whom, because information shared in the restoration context can have implications for the criminal case.
6. A defendant can be restored to competency and still face charges: Successful restoration means the criminal proceedings resume. The goal of the defense, during the restoration period, is to keep the defendant's rights protected and to ensure the eventual re-evaluation is as favorable as possible. Freedom First Criminal Defense monitors active cases throughout the restoration period.

Frequently asked questions

Can a defendant be forced to take medication to restore competency?

Courts have authority in some circumstances to order involuntary medication for the specific purpose of restoring competency when the defendant poses a danger or when the medication is necessary for a fair trial to proceed. The legal standards for involuntary medication are strict and the issue is often contested. Defense attorneys must actively litigate this question if medication is proposed involuntarily.

What happens if restoration is not possible?

If the court determines that competency cannot be restored within a reasonable time -- evaluated periodically based on Nevada statutes and federal constitutional standards -- the criminal charges may be dismissed without prejudice. The defendant may then be subject to civil commitment proceedings if they continue to pose a risk. The specific outcome depends on the charge severity and the clinical and legal assessments at the time.

Does AB 467 change what happens at the initial competency evaluation?

AB 467 affects the restoration process that follows a finding of incompetency -- not the initial evaluation itself. The evaluation process, standards, and timelines are governed by existing Nevada statute. AB 467 addresses what happens after the finding, expanding the restoration options available to the system.