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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT