ILNews

Judges uphold involuntary commitment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When a defendant has been previously committed to a state institution because he was found incompetent to stand trial, that state institution may be considered a community mental health center for purposes of a report required under Indiana Code 12-26-7-3(b), the Indiana Court of Appeals held Monday.

A.J. challenged his commitment to Logansport State Hospital after he was initially committed because of incompetency to stand trial. A.J. had many health issues, including deafness and partial blindness, hypothyroidism, and an IQ of 65. He was on probation for a criminal confinement conviction when he was charged with two counts of child molesting. The trial court ordered him evaluated, and the two psychiatrists found it unlikely A.J. would ever be restored to competence to stand trial.

A.J. was ordered committed to Logansport State Hospital. Hospital staff later petitioned for A.J. to remain at Logansport, alleging he suffered from a psychiatric disorder, a developmental disability, and that he was gravely disabled. The trial court granted the petition for involuntary commitment, finding him to be dangerous.

In A.J. v. Logansport State Hospital, No. 66A05-1012-MH-805, A.J. claimed that Logansport didn’t follow the requirements of I.C. 12-26-7-3, which says a commitment petition proceedings record must include a report from a community mental health center. A.J.’s petition includes a report from Logansport, which he claims is a state institution and not a CMHC.

After examining the definitions of state institution and CMHC, the Court of Appeals concluded that in this case, a state institution may be considered a CMHC for purposes of providing the report. The judges also concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding that A.J. is dangerous.

The appellate court also held that in determining whether regular commitment to a state institution is appropriate for a patient against whom criminal charges are pending, the trial court’s mere consideration of the state’s interest in restoring competency doesn’t per se violate the patient’s due process rights. But, the state’s interest in providing restoration services must also be legitimate, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

A.J. can’t be held perpetually at Logansport solely for competency rehabilitation services if he isn’t expected to attain competency in the foreseeable future, wrote the judge. The judges affirmed his commitment, and noted that trial court must review his care and treatment at least on an annual basis.

Judge L. Mark Bailey concurred in a separate opinion, to express concerns he has written about in a past decision regarding the adequacy of current criminal justice procedures to resolve issues presented by defendants with chronic mental illness.

“Assuming that A.J. ever attains competency, the resolution of the pending criminal charges will likely turn on whether, at the time of the alleged acts of molestation, A.J.’s mental disease was such that he cannot be held criminally responsible for his actions. This is where defendants like A.J. fall into Indiana’s twin ‘black holes’ of incompetency to assist defense counsel and competency restoration services,” he wrote. “There are no simple answers in the treatment of chronic mental illness, whether in a criminal or civil context, but A.J.’s case is an example of an area where the law must do better.”
 

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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT