Committed woman's charge must be dismissed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Faced with a question the U. S. Supreme Court declined to address more than 35 years ago, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's decision to dismiss a criminal charge against a committed woman who may never be able to stand trial because of incompetence.

In State of Indiana v. Charlene Davis, No. 49S02-0812-CR-657, Charlene Davis was arrested and charged with criminal recklessness after she entered a bank with a knife demanding money from an account that had been closed. She was evaluated for competency and the two court-appointed psychiatrists found she wasn't competent to stand trial. As a result, the trial court ordered Davis committed to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction in an appropriate psychiatric institution. She stayed in institutions in Evansville and Indianapolis for more than three years. The hospitals found a high probability Davis may never become competent to help her legal counsel for trial.

In March 2007, Davis' counsel filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing her hospitalization was like incarceration and she had already accrued more days than the maximum possible confinement she could receive if convicted. The trial court granted the motion; the Court of Appeals reversed.

The Indiana Supreme Court looked to Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), which ruled when there is no substantial probability a defendant will ever be restored to competency, he or she must be released or the state must institute civil commitment proceedings to commit the person indefinitely. But the nation's highest court declined to address the issue presented in the instant case: whether or not to dismiss the charges against Jackson. Now, four decades later, that is the issue Indiana's Supreme Court must decide.

Indiana has no relevant precedent on the question of whether there is an inherent denial of due process in holding pending criminal charges indefinitely over the head of someone who won't be able to prove his or her innocence, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

In Indiana, a person may be committed civilly if the state thinks it is necessary to protect the public and the mentally ill person and requires a finding the person is dangerous or gravely disabled. Justification of committing someone accused of a crime is to restore him or her to competency to stand trial. But in this case, competency isn't possible, the justice wrote. At this point, even if Davis were to become competent and convicted, she would be immune from further commitment because of the credit she would receive while being committed in the hospitals.

"In essence even though a civilly committed patient can be released if she is no longer dangerous or gravely disabled, the statute says nothing about whether the patient is eligible for release where the original commitment order was based on incompetency to stand trial," he wrote.

In this case, the state doesn't make a claim as to why it would be important to have Davis stand trial now even though she couldn't be sentenced to prison, nor is there any substantial public interest to be served by determining her guilt or innocence. As a result, it's a violation of basic notions of fundamental fairness as embodied in the 14th Amendment to hold criminal charges over the head of Davis, the Supreme Court ruled.


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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?