ILNews

COA finds mentally ill man was aware actions were wrong

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court in finding a man who is mentally ill was nevertheless aware of the wrongfulness of his actions.

In Luke Keys Carson v. State of Indiana, No. 29A04-1106-CR-278, Luke Keys Carson appealed his sentence for two counts of battery by means of a deadly weapon, burglary and resisting law enforcement. At trial, a jury found the man to be guilty but mentally ill, and not guilty of two counts of attempted murder.

In April 2009, Carson entered the unlocked trailer of a neighbor in a mobile home park, holding a black Bible and sheets of paper. The woman – Angelina Zuniga – spoke little English and did not understand what he was saying to her. After standing inside her trailer for a few minutes, Carson said “never mind” and left. When he returned later, Zuniga opened the door to ask him what he wanted, and he cut her hand with a knife. Zuniga and a friend forced the door shut, as Carson tried to force the door open from the outside.

That same morning, Carson got into a fight with Jorge Hernandez. Carson kept inching closer to Hernandez, asking him if he was “Richard,” and when Hernandez pushed him away, a fight ensued. Hernandez felt something “poking” him in the abdomen. He pulled Carson’s jacket up over the man’s head and saw that Carson had a knife. Hernandez ran and Carson threw the knife at him. After Hernandez saw Carson no longer had the knife, he returned, and the two began fighting again.

A police officer arrived, and Hernandez and Carson voluntarily stopped fighting. Hernandez pointed at Carson, who had retrieved his knife, and Carson fled. The officer told Carson to drop the knife or he would shoot, and while Carson dropped the knife, he continued to run until he tripped on gravel and fell. When another police officer arrived to assist, Carson asked for an attorney.

Two doctors performed a psychological evaluation on Carson in May 2009. They both concluded Carson had a psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbed his thinking and rendered him incompetent to stand trial. However, due to Carson’s confused state, they were not able to determine whether Carson could appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time he committed them.

A competency hearing found Carson was not competent to stand trial, and he was committed to Logansport State Mental Hospital. On Oct. 25, 2010, Logansport filed a report notifying the court that Carson was competent to stand trial.

The COA agreed that while Carson’s demeanor showed that he was mentally ill, statements he made at the time of his arrest indicated he was aware of the wrongfulness of his actions. He apologized, and he made comments that his actions were “stupid.”

Carson argued that his burglary conviction was not supported by evidence. But the COA wrote that Indiana Code 35-43-2-1 provides that a person who breaks and enters a dwelling of another person with intent to commit a felony in it commits Class B felony burglary. In statements to police, Carson said he had gone into Zuniga’s trailer to kill a baby but could not do it. That statement shows that he was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the intent to commit murder, even though there was no baby in Zuniga’s home.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT