Commitment statute not unconstitutional as applied to man with brain injury

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior Court did not violate a defendant’s due process rights in ordering his commitment to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction after finding him incompetent to stand trial. Evan Leedy suffered a traumatic brain injury in an auto accident that killed his girlfriend and injured another driver.

The state charged Leedy, who was driving, with four felony counts of operating while intoxicated stemming from the accident. He suffered a brain injury and was comatose for about a month. He underwent mental evaluations with a court-appointed psychiatrist and clinical psychologist, who split over whether Leedy could be returned to competency.

Representatives of the DMHA testified that Logansport State Hospital, which houses those with mental illness and disability awaiting trial, could provide services for Leedy. Any services the hospital couldn’t provide would be outsourced. DMHA’s chief counsel referenced the agency’s funding constraints on outpatient restorative services and that the agency would work to place Leedy wherever his specific needs could be best met.

Leedy, who has been staying with his mother during this litigation, argued that the commitment statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because I.C. 35-36-3-1 is specifically geared toward those with mental illness or disabilities.

“Leedy’s due process arguments are based on speculation concerning both DMHA’s ability to provide him with the necessary therapeutic services and his own cognitive responses to those services. Essentially, he has asked us to reweigh evidence and make a conclusion that the legislature has specifically delegated to experts in the field of mental competency, a determination that is made after a period of providing services and evaluating the patient/accused,” Judge Terry Crone wrote. “This is precisely why the General Assembly outlined such specific procedures, recognizing the delicate balance that exists between the fundamental fairness owed to the accused and the interests of both the public and the accused in the prompt disposition of criminal charges.”

The judges found the commitment statute is not unconstitutional as applied to Leedy and affirmed the commitment order. Judge Michael Barnes wrote separately to highlight what he called inadequacies in the state’s mental health system.

“All agree that the Larue Center in Indianapolis is better-suited to handle the specific type of brain injuries Leedy sustained. I would respectfully, but strongly, suggest that DMHA focus on securing the best and most appropriate treatment for Leedy—wherever that might be. Without providing the best possible services for competency treatment, evaluation, and restoration (if possible), DMHA and the State would possibly be delaying ultimate resolution of this case at the expense of Leedy, his family, the victims, and families of the victims of Leedy’s alleged crimes,” he wrote.

The case is Evan Leedy v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1303-CR-102.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.