State v. Sisouvanh, 290 P.3d 942

Sisouvanh was convicted of aggravated first degree murder after a competency evaluation under RCW 10.77.060.
The appointed examiner, Dr. Strandquist, evaluated her competency and produced a report not filed into the record, though copies were provided to both sides and the court.
Sisouvanh, a Laotian immigrant who arrived in the U.S. at age five, argued the evaluation failed to account for her cultural background.
The trial court found Sisouvanh competent, relying on Strandquist’s testimony and report, and sentenced her to life without parole.
Sisouvanh challenged the adequacy of the evaluation, including the examiner’s cultural competence and the use of certain tests (PAI, M-FAST).
The court of appeals affirmed, holding the evaluation was conducted in a qualified manner and satisfied RCW 10.77.060.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Strandquist’s evaluation satisfied RCW 10.77.060’s qualified-expert requirement	Sisouvanh argues Strandquist was not sufficiently culturally competent.	Sisouvanh contends evaluation was insufficiently qualified due to cultural factors.	Evaluation deemed conducted in a qualified manner; affirmed.
Scope of review for adequacy of a competency evaluation	Appellant asserts abuse of discretion standard should apply to adequacy.	State contends abuse-of-discretion review applies to adequacy as well.	Abuse-of-discretion standard applies to underlying adequacy of the evaluation.
Need for cultural competency in competency evaluations	Court should require explicit cultural-consultation in all cases.	Cultural competency is important but must be balanced by reasonable standards and case-specific needs.	Cultural competency is required, but not every case demands exhaustive cultural investigation; the record supports adequacy here.
Effect of incomplete record on review of the implicit finding	Missing report undermines the implicit finding of a qualified evaluation.	Record, including testimony and CV, supports the implicit finding.	Record is sufficient to affirm; record incompleteness does not require reversal.

State v. Wade, 138 Wn.2d 460 (Wash. 1999) (standard of review and evidentiary considerations for review)
State v. Lord, 117 Wn.2d 829 (Wash. 1991) (competency hearing standards and abuse of discretion)
State v. McDonald, 89 Wn.2d 256 (Wash. 1977) (discretion in evaluating competency evidence)
State v. Dodd, 70 Wn.2d 513 (Wash. 1967) (trial court may rely on various sources in competency determinations)
In re Pers. Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853 (Wash. 2001) (modest aims of competency standard and contextual factors)
State v. Niblack, 74 Wn.2d 200 (Wash. 1968) (competency determinations and review standards)