In Re Eddie O.
227 Ariz. 99
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Eddie O. was charged with two offenses and found incompetent but restorable, with a 240-day restoration window under A.R.S. § 8-291.10(H).
- Eddie was not restored within 240 days, and the State alleged bad-faith nonparticipation by Eddie as the reason.
- A psychologist opined Eddie could be restored within 60 days with twice-weekly services, but noted attendance difficulties.
- The trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice, ruling bad-faith nonparticipation could not toll the 240-day limit.
- The State appealed, arguing time should be excluded for periods of Eddie’s nonparticipation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 240 days tolls for restoration exclude periods of nonparticipation | State: nonparticipation tolls the limit; periods should be excluded. | O. No tolling; 240 days running regardless of conduct. | Yes; periods of nonparticipation may be excluded; remand to determine tolling. |
| Whether the juvenile must participate in good faith for the full 240 days | State: good-faith participation required; nonparticipation tolls. | O. Plain language requires participation but excludes only complete failure. | Yes; court may assess good-faith participation and exclude periods. |
| What guidance the statutory scheme provides on participation and restoration | State: statutes imply active participation; no absolutes against tolling. | O. Absence of explicit tolling language does not preclude tolling in context. | Statutory scheme contemplates participation; conduct-based tolling permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nowell v. Rees, 219 Ariz. 399 (Ariz. 2008) (adult competency; reserved issue of bad-faith tolling)
- Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272 (Ariz. 1996) (consider effects and consequences; statutory context)
- In re Andrew C., 215 Ariz. 366 (Ariz. App. 2007) (hypotheticals aid interpretation of ambiguity)