BJ Penn returns to court after missed mental exam

Jay Dee "BJ" Penn, 47, appeared in Hilo Circuit Court after failing to attend a court-ordered mental fitness examination, a development that has added new steps to a case already tied to alleged family abuse and related charges. Penn faces counts that include alleged family abuse, refusing to comply with a police officer, and violating a restraining order, and the recent hearing focused on his requests to change legal representation and to recuse the presiding judge.

During the hearing, Penn filed motions seeking to replace his court-appointed attorney and to remove the judge from the case, saying he had attempted repeatedly to contact judicial chambers about those concerns. Judge Peter Kubota advised Penn to bring any complaints about counsel to his attorney, Alan Komagome, and outlined the established procedures for raising claims of inadequate representation. The judge also confirmed the court’s process for addressing motions to recuse.

The court rescheduled Penn’s mental fitness evaluation to Jan. 15, and set his next return to Hilo Circuit Court for March 2. The outcome of the mental fitness exam could have significant bearings on how the case proceeds, including potential changes to competency status, trial scheduling, and the terms of any pretrial restrictions. For victims and neighbors in Big Island County, those timelines shape local safety expectations and the public calendar for a high-profile case.

This hearing is the latest procedural step in a sequence of court actions tied to the same incident and subsequent orders involving mental-health evaluations. Requests to change court-appointed counsel and to recuse judges are routine avenues available to defendants; how the court addresses them can affect case momentum and public transparency. The judge’s instruction that concerns be channeled through counsel reflects standard courtroom practice intended to protect both the defendant’s rights and the integrity of judicial processes.

For community members tracking the case, the rescheduled exam and the March return date are the key milestones to watch. Court rulings on representation and recusal could alter who argues the case and the pace at which evidence and motions move forward, while a determination about mental fitness could shift venue, representation, or trial readiness.

The takeaway? Keep an eye on the Jan. 15 exam and the March 2 docket—these dates will shape how and when the court resolves outstanding questions. If you’re following this case, mark those dates and expect further filings and hearings as the court sorts through competency and representation matters.