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. 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