ILNews

Judge: Courts failing on mental illness

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge today lambastes the criminal justice system's efforts in dealing with defendants who may never be competent to stand trial, inviting more to be done by either the state's lawmakers or highest court.

"Our criminal justice system has a mechanism to deal with temporary incompetence as it pertains to criminal culpability, or scienter, but fails miserably when faced with the likely long-term or permanent mental illness of a criminal defendant," Judge Paul Mathias wrote in a concurring opinion in Ahmed Habibzadah v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0807-CR-400.

The judge's perspective came in a decision where the appellate panel unanimously agreed that Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton-Pratt properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss criminal charges based on findings that Ahmed Habibzadah was incompetent to stand trial.

Habibzadah faced attempted murder and aggravated battery charges for the November 2005 stabbing of his wife in the chest and head - records say he also stabbed himself in the stomach and sliced his neck. About two years after being charged, the man who'd been diagnosed with receptive expressive language disorder as a child was committed to the Indiana Department of Mental Health because of a determination that he didn't understand the criminal action against him and couldn't help in his own defense. Doctors informed the trial court that he would not regain competency anytime soon, and civil commitment proceedings began. Judge Pratt determined she didn't have the authority to dismiss the charges and that it would be premature to dismiss the case because of the possibility Habibzadah could become competent to stand trial.

Considering an Indiana Supreme Court decision that addressed a similar issue last year in State v. Davis, 898 N.E. 2d 281 (Ind. 2008), the appellate panel decided that Habibzadah's case doesn't warrant a dismissal despite precedent that a trial court has an inherent and statutory authority to dismiss charges when a prosecution might violate that person's constitutional due process rights.

Justices held it violated a person's fundamental fairness rights to hold criminal charges over the head of someone who isn't and may never be competent to stand trial.

"I concur in the majority's decision to affirm the trial court, but believe that our current criminal justice procedures are inadequate to consider and resolve issues presented by defendants suffering from long-term or permanent mental illness," Judge Mathias wrote, noting that the Davis decision doesn't go far enough.

That ruling requires that an incompetent defendant be civilly committed for the maximum sentence allowed under the crimes he or she is charged with, unless that person becomes competent to stand trial during the time period - meaning that person could be held for life if they never regain competency to be tried for the alleged crime.

"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 section 35-36-2-1... In either case, the commitment proceedings provided for in Indiana Code section 35-36-2-4 would both protect society and best care for the defendant involved."

Whether such a procedure is best ordered by Indiana Supreme Court rule making or through the General Assembly is left open for another day, he wrote.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT