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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT