ILNews

COA: 'Serious deficiency' in treating mentally ill

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals used an opinion today to highlight what it considered a "serious deficiency" in the statutes for the treatment of developmentally disabled and mentally ill people in the state's criminal courts.

"Simply said, the Indiana statutory framework allows courts to recognize the mental illness of a criminal defendant only in terms of guilt for the crime alleged, rather than as a condition that prevents the defendant's ability to form a punishable intention to commit the crime alleged in the first instance," wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The judges examined the state's statutes regarding people who lack sufficient comprehension to stand trial for a criminal offense in Steven Thomas and Derrick Dausman v. Anne Waltermann Murphy, in her official capacity as secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al., No. 49A02-0812-CV-1140. Steven Thomas and Derrick Dausman appealed the entry of summary judgment for Anne Waltermann Murphy, as secretary of the Family and Social Services Administration, and Gina Eckhart, director of the Division of Mental Health and Addiction, in their request for a preliminary injunction preventing the DMHA from placing criminal defendants who lack sufficient comprehension to stand trial in a state institution when medical and psychiatric treatment professionals recommend placement in a less restrictive setting. The trial court found the issues weren't ripe for determination.

Thomas and Dausman are developmentally disabled individuals charged with child molestation and found to possess insufficient comprehension to stand trial. Both had medical professionals recommend they be treated on an outpatient basis, but their treatment teams didn't make that recommendation and they were committed to the DMHA based on Indiana Code Chapter 35-36-3. Dausman was released on bond in April 2009 after the trial court found the state failed to establish the statutory criteria for regular commitment had been met. Thomas may never be released because he may never be found competent to stand trial.

Criminal defendants found incompetent to stand trial are committed to the DMHA for competency restoration services; DMHA doesn't provide or contract for outpatient or community-based placement alternatives. It believes community-based services wouldn't provide adequate supervision or monitoring for those charged with crimes, and those services would require more resources and funding than the FSSA and DMHA have available.

The appellate court agreed that Thomas and Dausman's issues weren't ripe for adjudication. Dausman has since been released on bond and he failed to show he suffered any hardship because of the application of the DMHA's policy regarding incompetent defendants. Thomas' claims were based on the possibility that he would be able to participate in community-based treatment if and when his treatment team would make that recommendation. His claims were abstract and lack factual basis.

The judges also noted Dausman's situation highlights problems in the treatment of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled in criminal courts. Current law doesn't have a procedure to determine whether Dausman had the necessary mens rea at the time of the alleged molestation to commit the offense, Judge Mathias wrote. The DMHA interprets the statute mandating competency restoration services to extend to those who will never be able to reach even a minimal level of competency.

"Our criminal justice system needs an earlier and intervening procedure to determine competency retroactively to the time of the alleged crime," he wrote. "Perhaps we as a society need to consider the concept of a defendant being unchargeable because of mental illness under Indiana Code section 35-41-3-6, and not just guilty but mentally ill under Indiana Code chapter 35-36-2."
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT