In
January 2018, the State charged Slye with first degree rape
of a child, two counts of first degree child molestation, and
attempted first degree child molestation. The trial court
ordered a competency evaluation based on Slye's
developmental disability.
Dr
Ray Hendrickson conducted Slye's competency evaluation.
Dr. Hendrickson diagnosed Slye with a mild intellectual
disability, language disorder, and social (pragmatic)
communication disorder. Dr. Hendrickson noted that Slye had
previously been evaluated by forensic staff at the Child
Study and Treatment Center (CSTC) in 2014 and 2015 based on
pending juvenile court charges. After a 90-day restoration
period, CSTC staff concluded that restoration was not likely
and that Slye was not likely to benefit from further
competency restoration treatment.
Throughout
his assessment, Dr. Hendrickson noted that Slye did not know
many terms associated with criminal charges, but after an
explanation was able to recall some of the information. Slye
also presented with only a limited understanding of court
personnel and criminal trials. Generally, Slye exhibited
limited ability to meaningfully interact with his attorney
understand his attorney's advice, or ask questions about
things he did not understand. Based on his evaluation of
Slye, Dr. Hendrickson opined,
While Mr. Slye may have a limited ability to have &
factual understanding of his charges and to a lesser
extent, court proceedings, his ability to have a rational
understanding of court proceedings was significantly
limited. Due to his continuing cognitive limitations, he
would likely be unable to work with his attorney to assist in
his defense.
In conclusion, Mr. Slye presents with symptoms of a mental
disease or defect that significantly impair his ability to
have a rational understanding of the court
proceedings he faces. These symptoms also significantly
impair his ability to consult with his attorney with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding. He would
likely be unable to work with and assist his attorney in his
defense.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 24 (emphasis in original).
Dr
Hendrickson had "considerable doubt" about whether
restoration treatment would result in any improvement of
Slye's condition. CP at 24. Dr. Hendrickson explained,
I note that after a 90-day restoration period at CSTC in
2015, he exhibited no significant improvement. Restoration
procedures at [Western State Hospital] WSH would be
essentially identical to CSTC procedures, and would include
education about court proceedings and working with his
attorney.
CP at
24. However, Dr. Hendrickson recognized that because Slye had
matured since his last restoration treatment, it was possible
that "with repetitious explanation of concepts, he could
improve to the level of being able to consult with his
attorney with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding." CP at 24.
The
trial court found that Slye was not competent to stand trial.
The court ordered a 90-day competency restoration treatment
period.
In July
2018, Dr. Johnathan Sharrette performed another competency
evaluation following Slye's restoration treatment period.
Dr. Sharrette's observations of Syle's understanding
of the legal system were consistent with Dr
Hendrickson's observations. Dr. Sharrette opined that
Slye was not competent to stand trial. Dr. Sharrette also
opined that further restoration treatment was not
recommended. Dr. Sharrette explained,
[Slye's] deficits are not amenable to treatment with
psychiatric medication; they are due to cognitive limitation.
Additional time and effort are not likely to increase his
understanding of competency-related information. His language
and intellectual deficits are long-standing and
well-documented. After approximately fifteen years of special
education and assistance, his language deficits persist, and
will not likely improve in the limited amount of time offered
by the law. In speaking with his psychiatrist, there is no
available psychiatric treatment available that would improve
his cognitive or verbal skills.
CP at 149.
The
trial court found that Slye continued to be incompetent to
stand trial. The court also found that Slye was unlikely to
regain competency and further treatment was not likely to
restore competency. As a result, the court dismissed the
charges without prejudice. Following dismissal, Slye was
civilly committed at WSH.
In
November 2018, the State refiled the information, charging
Slye with first degree rape of a child, two counts of first
degree child molestation, and attempted first degree child
molestation. The State included a supplemental declaration of
probable cause with the refiled information. The State
declared,
These charges were dismissed on July 9, 2018 after the court
found the defendant incompetent. The court referred the
defendant to Western State Hospital to be evaluated for civil
commitment pursuant to RCW 71.05, as required by statute. The
defendant has been at Western State Hospital since then. The
State was notified on September 21, 2018 that the defendant
could qualify for temporary unescorted leaves into the
community and that the State would receive 10 days'
notice prior to any authorized leave. The State did not
receive that particular notice, however, on October 8, 2018
the State was informed that although the defendant's
civil commitment under RCW 71.05 does not expire March, 2019,
the defendant does not have a mental health diagnosis and is
not on medication, therefore he does not meet the criteria to
remain at Western State and Western State would be moving
toward discharging him into the community prior to the
expiration of the civil commitment period. ... As Western
State feels that it does not have a basis for keeping the
defendant through his civil commitment period, and because
the defendant could be released into the community very soon,
the State is refiling these charges.
CP at 179.
The
trial court ordered another competency evaluation. In
December 2018, Dr. Sharrette completed a new competency
evaluation for Slye. Dr. Sharrette's opinions after
completing the competency evaluation was substantially
similar to the outcome of Slye's two prior evaluations.
As to whether restoration treatment should be attempted, Dr.
Sharrette opined,
Should the Court find that Mr. Slye is not competent to stand
trial, inpatient psychiatric treatment is typically
recommended toward improving his condition so his competency
can be restored. However, Mr. Slye has undergone a competency
restoration period earlier this year, as well as in 2015 at
the Child Study and Treatment Center. After the 90-day
restoration period at CSTC in 2015 there was no significant
improvement in his competency; this was again the case for
his most recent 90-day restoration period as well. The
restoration process would again focus on education regarding
court proceedings as well as how to work with his attorney.
His limitations are cognitive in nature, and cannot be
improved with medication. It is doubtful that another
restoration period would have any significant effect on Mr.
Slye's competency. Of course, it is ultimately the
Court's decision as to restoration.
CP at 251.
A few
weeks later, Dr. Sharrette filed an addendum in which he
considered additional information regarding Slye's work
toward completing his high school education. Dr. Sharrette
noted that Slye was completing worksheets in order to obtain
credit toward high school graduation. However, the work was
being completed under an Individual Education Plan, which
allowed Slye to receive credit for classwork based on effort,
time on task, and attendance, rather than mastery of any
subject area. As a result, Slye was primarily completing
fourth grade level worksheets and often got many of the items
on the worksheet wrong. Dr. Sharrette noted that the
additional information did not change his opinions on
competency.
In
January 2019, Slye filed a motion to dismiss the charges
because the State lacked a good faith basis to refile the
information. Slye included an email from Dr. Paula van Pul,
one of Slye's psychologists at WSH, to the State, in
which Dr. van Pul stated:
I talked to the ward psychologist and Mr. Slye today. Mr
Slye is reported not to be a behavioral problem on the ward
and he is working on academic work in an effort to get his
high school diploma.
Mr. Slye is reported to be at baseline and as you are aware
he does not take any medications nor has he been diagnosed
with a mental illness. In speaking to him, it is apparent
that he has an intellectual disability and that his verbal
comprehension is limited. He has difficulty with concepts
that have more than one simple idea. When processing
information he requires simple concepts and his thinking is
concrete in nature. He does not do well with any questions or
...
