*505 ¶ 1. This case comes before the Court on interlocutory appeal. The sole issue is whether, under 13 V.S.A. § 4814, the State may compel a defendant to submit to a competency evaluation conducted by a mental health expert of the State's choosing, following a court-ordered competency evaluation by a neutral mental health expert. 1 We hold that the State may not compel such an evaluation, and we therefore reverse.

¶ 2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The State charged defendant with second-degree murder in July 2013. While defendant was incarcerated pretrial, his counsel requested a competency hearing. The court ordered an evaluation and, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 4814, the Department of Mental Health selected a neutral expert to conduct the evaluation. The neutral expert conducted a competency evaluation on February 15, 2015, but defense counsel was not present when the doctor conducted the examination and counsel moved for a reevaluation. Again, the court ordered an evaluation and the Department selected a second expert. The second expert requested access to the first expert's report and later requested a neuropsychological consult. The Department declined to provide funding for a neuropsychological examination, and the expert, who maintained that such an examination was necessary to complete the competency evaluation, suggested that the court reassign the evaluation to another doctor. On February 12, 2016, the court granted that request and the Department subsequently appointed another expert to conduct the competency evaluation. The third court-appointed expert, Dr. Weker, concluded that "defendant is not mentally competent to stand trial for the alleged offense." The parties received a copy of that report on May 23, 2016.

¶ 3. In the meantime, defense counsel engaged an expert, Dr. Wilmuth, to perform a competency evaluation, which Dr. Wilmuth completed on April 24, 2015. Defendant did not attempt to introduce the results of Dr. Wilmuth's report. Nevertheless, after receiving Dr. Weker's report, the State retained its own expert, Dr. Linder, and at a status conference on June 20, 2016, requested that Dr. Linder be given access to defendant in order to conduct a fifth competency evaluation. Defendant objected to the State's request, arguing that "[t]he [c]ourt has no legal authority to order [defendant] to submit to a psychiatric evaluation arranged by the State." In a written order dated July 18, 2016, the court granted the State's motion and ordered defendant to submit to a competency evaluation conducted by the State's expert. In response, defendant filed this interlocutory appeal.

¶ 4. The appeal presents one issue: whether 13 V.S.A. § 4814 gives the court the authority to order a defendant to submit to a competency evaluation conducted by an expert retained by the prosecution, in addition to a court-ordered competency evaluation conducted by a neutral expert selected by the Department of Mental Health. This is a pure question of law and we therefore review it de novo. See State v. Beauregard , 2003 VT 3 , ¶ 4, 175 Vt. 472 , 820 A.2d 183 (mem.).

¶ 5. Our analysis begins with the language of the statute. "Our primary objective *506 in construing a statute is to effectuate the Legislature's intent." Wesco, Inc. v. Sorrell , 2004 VT 102 , ¶ 14, 177 Vt. 287 , 865 A.2d 350 . If a statute's language is unambiguous and its words have plain meaning, "we accept the statute's plain meaning as the intent of the Legislature and our inquiry proceeds no further." Id .

¶ 6. 13 V.S.A. § 4814(a)(4) provides:

Any court before which a criminal prosecution is pending may order the Department of Mental Health to have the defendant examined by a psychiatrist at any time before, during or after trial, and before final judgment ... when the Court believes that there is doubt as to the defendant's mental competency to be tried for the alleged offense.

Additionally, § 4814(b) gives the trial court the authority to order a competency evaluation on its own motion, on a motion filed by the State, on a motion filed by the defendant, or on a motion filed by another party acting on behalf of the defendant. Sections 4815 and 4816 outline the process by which a competency evaluation must be conducted and limit the scope of permissible uses of a report prepared in accordance with these sections. Specifically, § 4816(d) prohibits the State from admitting into evidence any statement made by a defendant during a competency evaluation "in any criminal proceeding for the purpose of proving the commission of a criminal offense or for the purpose of impeaching testimony" of the defendant. Section 4816(f) also explains that the court's decision to introduce a competency report "shall not preclude either party or the [c]ourt from calling the psychiatrist who wrote the report as a witness or from calling witnesses or introducing other relevant evidence."

¶ 7. The language of the statute is clear on its face. When the court has doubt as to a defendant's competency, the court has the authority to "order the Department of Mental Health to have the defendant examined by a psychiatrist." 13 V.S.A. § 4814(a). Although the State is correct that "[n]othing in the statute contemplates that the only expert witness [at the competency hearing] be a court-appointed expert," the statute does not grant the court the authority to require a defendant to submit to a competency evaluation by any other doctor. 2 Additionally, although the State argues that to prohibit it from conducting its own competency evaluation would undermine the Legislature's intent that the competency hearing "be conducted in a manner which permits both parties meaningfully to challenge the evidence of the other," the statute provides a mechanism-"calling witnesses or introducing *507 other relevant evidence"-by which the State may challenge or rebut the conclusions of a court-appointed, neutral expert. See id . § 4816(f).

¶ 8. This construction of the statute is also consistent with the discovery provisions in the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rules establish reciprocal discovery rights between a defendant and the prosecution. See V.R.Cr.P. 16, 16.1. Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.1(a)(1)(I) specifically allows the prosecution to conduct "a reasonable mental examination by a psychiatrist or other expert" when a defendant raises an insanity defense or otherwise wishes to offer expert testimony relating to a mental condition bearing on guilt. See id .; V.R.Cr.P. 12.1(a). Neither this rule, nor any other one, authorizes the State to conduct an examination for purposes of competency to stand trial.

¶ 9. Moreover, our conclusion that the court lacks the authority to order a defendant to submit to a competency evaluation conducted by an expert retained by the State is consistent with underlying constitutional principles. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ake v. Oklahoma , 470 U.S. 68 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 , 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), established that when an indigent defendant is charged with a crime, and where the defendant's " 'mental condition' " is " 'relevant to his [or her] criminal culpability and to the punishment he [or she] might suffer,' " due process requires that the State provide funding for "a mental health professional capable of performing a certain role: 'conduct[ing] an appropriate examination and assist[ing] in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.' " McWilliams v. Dunn , --- U.S. ----, ---, 137 S. Ct. 1790 , 1794, 198 L.Ed.2d 341 (2017) (quoting Ake , 470 U.S. at 80, 83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 ). Thus, where-as is the case here-an indigent defendant's mental health is at issue, "due process requires that the State provide the defendant with the assistance of an independent psychiatrist." Tuggle v. Netherland , 516 U.S. 10 , 12, 116 S.Ct. 283 , 133 L.Ed.2d 251 (1995). Additionally, in the context of a competency hearing, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "[f]or the defendant, the consequences of an erroneous determination of competence are dire. Because he [or she] lacks the ability to communicate effectively with counsel, he [or she] may be unable to exercise other rights deemed essential to a fair trial." Cooper v. Oklahoma , 517 U.S. 348 , 364, 116 S.Ct. 1373 , 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) (quotation omitted). In short, a defendant whose competency has been called into question has a constitutionally based right to hire, with state funding, a defense-retained mental health expert to assist in his or her defense in order to guard against the possibility of an erroneous determination of competency.

¶ 10. However, "[b]y comparison to the defendant's interest, the injury to the State of the opposite error-a conclusion that the defendant is incompetent when he [or she] is in fact malingering-is modest." Id . at 365 , 116 S.Ct. 1373 . That is in part because the primary harms that such an error imposes on the State are the financial burden and the frustration of the "State's interest in the prompt disposition of criminal charges." Id . However, "the error is subject to correction in a subsequent proceeding and the State may detain the incompetent defendant for the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he [or she] will attain competence in the foreseeable future." Id . (quotation and alteration omitted). The practical reality is that even if the court erroneously concludes that a defendant is incompetent, the defendant is not acquitted of the offense or released from State custody; rather, upon *508 a finding that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the court "shall hold a hearing for the purpose of determining whether such person should be committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health" and the defendant "may be confined in jail or some other suitable place by order of the court pending hearing for a period not exceeding 15 days." 13 V.S.A. § 4820(4).

¶ 11. Thus, in the context of a competency hearing contemplated by 13 V.S.A. § 4814, the State's "modest" interests are sufficiently protected by the process provided for by statute. First, if the court-appointed, neutral expert determines that the defendant is competent, the State can call the expert as a witness and "introduc[e] other relevant evidence" to support the expert's opinion. Id. 4816(f). Second, if the court-appointed, neutral expert determines that the defendant is incompetent, the State may attempt to undermine the expert's conclusion by "introducing other relevant evidence," including evidence that would tend to call into question the expert's credibility or the veracity of his or her analysis. 3 Id.

¶ 12. Finally, as other courts that have addressed this issue have noted, "[t]he policy reasons behind prohibiting the [State] from obtaining its own competency evaluation are clear." Bishop v. Caudill , 118 S.W.3d 159 , 163 (Ky. 2003). 4 Specifically, ordering "an examination for the sole purpose of ascertaining competency, especially if ordered against a defendant's wishes," creates the risk that the State "would gain *509 the inherent and possibly unfair advantage of gleaning insight as to the defense strategy." Id. at 164 ; see also State v. Garcia , 2000-NMCA-014 , ¶ 24, 128 N.M. 721 , 998 P.2d 186 (rejecting State's argument that "basic principles of fairness" required court to order defendant to submit to second competency evaluation by State expert after neutral expert reported that defendant was incompetent).

¶ 13. Where the language of a statute is clear, we must enforce the statute by its terms, Wesco, Inc. , 2004 VT 102 , ¶ 14, 177 Vt. 287 , 865 A.2d 350 , and the language of this statute is clear. Section 4814 gives the court the authority to appoint an expert to conduct a competency evaluation. The State, like the defendant, may move for the court to do so. The statute does not confer on the State or the defendant the right to an examination other than one ordered by the court, 5 and the defendant's right to an expert to assist in his or her defense and to provide an opinion on competency originates in due process. See Ake , 470 U.S. at 80, 83 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . Accordingly, we decline to read into this statute an expansion of the trial court's authority to order a competency evaluation beyond what is manifest on the face of the statute.

Reversed .