Yuma Man Found Competent in Child Sexual Abuse Case, KYMA Reports

A Yuma man accused of sexually abusing a child has been found competent to stand trial, moving his case toward a February 2027 trial.

Ethan Riley Kotlinski's competency finding was reported by KYMA on October 8. The station did not provide an exact trial date.

The finding answers one legal question: whether Kotlinski can understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense. It does not determine whether he committed the alleged offenses, and it does not settle the insanity defense his attorneys previously raised.

Both Kotlinski and his wife, Amanda, who faces separate charges in the same investigation, pleaded not guilty on March 30.

An October 12 review of the Arizona Judicial Branch's public court records showed an August 20 order for a Rule 11 competency evaluation and a September 23 entry referring to a Rule 11 finding. The latter entry's description is incomplete, and the actual competency order was not available.

That leaves some details unresolved, including the precise date of the ruling, which judge issued it and the reasoning behind the decision. October 8 is the date KYMA reported the outcome, not necessarily the date the court reached it.

What competency means, and what it doesn't

Arizona law draws a specific line between competency to stand trial and legal insanity.

Under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-4501, a defendant is considered incompetent when a mental illness, defect or disability prevents the person from understanding the nature of the proceedings or assisting in the defense. Having a mental illness or disability does not, by itself, establish incompetence.

When a court finds a defendant competent, the criminal proceedings continue. An initial finding of incompetence generally leads to treatment intended to restore competency, although state law provides exceptions.

In Kotlinski's case, the available docket information establishes that an evaluation was ordered. It does not show whether he was previously found incompetent or received restoration treatment.

The insanity defense addresses a different question.

Arizona's guilty-except-insane law concerns a defendant's mental state when the alleged criminal act occurred. The legal standard asks whether a mental disease or defect was so severe that the person did not know the act was wrong.

A defendant raising that defense must prove legal insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

The difference matters. Competency concerns a person's ability to participate in court proceedings. An insanity defense concerns the person's mental state at the time of the alleged offense.

KYMA reported on August 26 that Kotlinski's attorneys were raising an insanity defense. The station also reported that a September 16 court appearance was scheduled to discuss findings from doctors who had examined his mental state.

The October 8 competency report does not establish whether the insanity defense remains pending, has been withdrawn or has otherwise been resolved.

The charges and the second defendant

The case began in March.

According to the Yuma Police Department's March 25 news release, officers received information on March 12 about alleged sexual offenses involving a 13-year-old child. Investigators identified Ethan Kotlinski as a suspect and said Amanda Kotlinski was also implicated as the investigation continued.

Both were arrested March 16.

The department reported that each defendant had been indicted on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of sexual abuse.

There is a discrepancy between that police release and some of the early news coverage.

KYMA's March 30 report described two sexual-conduct counts and one sexual-abuse count against each defendant.

The Arizona Judicial Branch's case search, reviewed October 12, listed three sexual-conduct counts and one sexual-abuse count for each defendant, matching the original police release.

The Yuma County Sheriff's Office inmate records also list those four charges under each defendant's Superior Court case. The records contain additional earlier entries marked "No Complaint Filed," which are not included in that four-count total.

The indictments themselves were not obtained, so the precise charging language has not been independently confirmed from those documents.

The two criminal cases are identified in Yuma County Superior Court records as:

• Ethan Riley Kotlinski: S-1400-CR-202600238
• Amanda Kotlinski: S-1400-CR-202600237

Both dockets record a March 24 indictment and a March 30 arraignment.

As of the October 12 records review, both defendants remained listed in custody at the Yuma County Detention Center. The sheriff's inmate portal showed total bond amounts of $350,000 for Ethan and $200,000 for Amanda.

Amanda Kotlinski's case moves separately

While Ethan's case is moving toward a reported February trial, Amanda's case has its own schedule.

According to KYMA's October 8 report, Amanda has a trial-setting and change-of-plea hearing scheduled for November 13, 2026.

A change-of-plea hearing can involve a defendant entering a different plea, but scheduling one does not establish that an agreement has been reached or accepted by the court.

KYMA's report did not identify an accepted plea agreement.

Amanda's Superior Court docket also records a July 28 order setting a settlement conference. The available entry does not establish whether the conference resulted in an agreement or how any discussions concluded.

Ethan's competency finding applies to his case. It does not establish Amanda's competency, determine the outcome of her charges or indicate how she intends to proceed.

The October 12 court-record review showed the latest displayed docket activity as October 1 for Ethan and October 2 for Amanda. The Arizona Judicial Branch cautions that its public case information is updated weekly and may not provide a complete or current record.

The exact February trial date, any later scheduling changes and the outcome of any plea discussions remain unconfirmed.

Both defendants have pleaded not guilty and are presumed innocent. The competency ruling allows Ethan's criminal case to proceed, but the allegations against either defendant have yet to be proved in court.