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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT