My pet peeve is a 46B competency report which does not address the statutorily required items, i.e. as follows:
1. The capacity of the defendant during criminal proceedings to:
a) rationally understand the charges and the potential consequences of the pending criminal prosecution,
b) disclose to counsel pertinent facts, events and states of mind,
c) engage in a reasoned choice of legal strategies and options,
d) understand the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings,
e) exhibit appropriate courtroom behavior and testify
2. Whether the defendant has a diagnosable mental illness or is a person with mental retardation and the impact of same on the his/her capacity to engage with counsel in a reasonable and rational manner.
3. If the defendant is taking psychoactive or other medications. Whether same is necessary to maintain competency and the effect of the medication on the defendant�s appearance, demeanor or ability to participate in the proceedings.
***
I see too many reports which commonly are conclusory in nature, or merely cite the Dusky standard but do not specifically address in the body of the report these required items. Any report which does not do so is ipso facto vulnerable. If I made such an omission, I should be called to task for it, so should other experts.

Has the statute been in place long enough to reasonably expect compliance?

If the court's order spells out the statutorily required items, they will get included in the report. A sloppy order that does not specify the required findings will produce a sloppy report.

As a member of TCOOMI, a state advisory committee, I can tell you that there is an attempt being made to review those reports. But, without an enforcement mechanism for the failure to forward the report to TCOOMI or a means of forcing judges to follow the law, it is difficult to gain consistency throughout the state.

There is some talk of developing a standardized template that would require the psychiatrist to provide certain information.

Ah, yes, yet another government form.