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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT