ILNews

Judges find ruling denied mentally ill man's due process rights

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed today the denial of a mentally ill man’s motion to dismiss charges against him because not dismissing the charges was a violation of his due process rights.

Alva Curtis, 58, has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder. He has little education and is unable to do many basic household chores, according to court documents. He also suffers from dementia, which is getting worse.

He was living with a friend when Curtis allegedly yelled at his neighbor as the neighbor walked by. Authorities also alleged Curtis followed the man into the neighbor’s home, hit him with a wooden chair, and damaged property. Curtis was charged with residential entry, battery, and criminal mischief. He was released from jail nearly a month after the incident and ended up in a long-term, locked facility before being moved to a rehabilitation and nursing facility.

Two doctors conducted psychiatric examinations of Curtis and determined he was unable to understand the proceedings against him, assist his attorney, and would likely never be restored to competency. 

The trial court denied his motion to dismiss and refused to commit Curtis to the Indiana Department of Mental Health and Addictions based on the cost to the state. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court overturned the denial in Alva Curtis v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0911-CR-1106.

The judges relied on State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281, 285 (Ind. 2008), in finding Curtis’ due process rights had been violated. They rejected the state’s argument that Davis is distinguishable because Davis had been committed by the state and confined for longer than the maximum period of time that she could have served in prison.

The appellate court didn’t fault the trial court for not committing Curtis in order to save money, but that rationale doesn’t support the decision to deny dismissing the charging information. Although part of the Davis holding was premised on the defendant’s confinement, the appellate court also explained the mere act of holding criminal charges indefinitely over the head of someone who won’t ever be able to prove his innocence is a violation of due process rights, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The judges also quoted and joined Court of Appeals Judge Paul Mathias’ concerns written in a separate opinion in Habibzadah v. State, 904 N.E.2d 367, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), in which the judge observed the inadequacy of our current criminal justice procedures with regard to mentally ill defendants.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT