ILNews

Justices address incompetent defendants in 2 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court handed down two opinions Tuesday in which the defendants, who were found to be incompetent at some point, argued that pending charges violated their rights to due process on fundamental-fairness grounds.

In Alva Curtis v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1010-CR-620, Alva Curtis appealed the denial of his September 2009 motion to dismiss and discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). He was charged June 28, 2007, with residential entry, battery, and criminal mischief. Curtis has a developmental disability and is unable to read. He was held for 29 days and later released. His competency was evaluated, with doctors saying he would likely never be restored to competency. He was never committed to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction and the trial court never made a finding that he was unlikely to regain competency, although it stated he would never become competent.

On interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals found the pending criminal charges violated his right to due process and ordered the charging information dismissed. Curtis also raised constitutional speedy-trial claims in his appellate brief, but the COA didn’t address that claim or his Criminal Rule 4(C) issues.

The justices ruled Curtis forfeited his constitutional speedy-trial claims because he raised them for the first time on appeal, but they did find he is entitled to discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C) because he was held longer than one year on the charges after the justices took into account the delays attributable to Curtis.

The high court also addressed his due process argument and found the COA erred in ordering dismissal based on fundamental-fairness grounds. Using State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008), to support their decision, the justices noted that in the instant case, there was no proper finding that Curtis will never be restored to competency. Also, Curtis was never found to be incompetent under Indiana Code 35-36-3-1 nor has he been committed by the trial court.

“Those two facts alone take Curtis’s case outside the parameters of a due process violation,” wrote Justice Steven David.

In a companion opinion, Douglas Denzell v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1106-CR-340, the high court agreed with the COA that pending charges against Denzell do not violate his right to due process. Denzell, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was charged with misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and public intoxication after refusing to leave a bar. He was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction, but was later sent to a hospital. In order to avoid trial, Denzell would stop taking his medication after he was considered restored to competency. The trial court later entered a commitment order.

Denzell wanted his charges dismissed, arguing he had already served the maximum imposable sentence for his charges. The trial court denied the motion. The justices noted that Denzell can be restored to competency but sabotages that process by not taking his medication.

“It would be counterintuitive to allow a defendant to assert a due process violation based on incompetency if the defendant himself purposely decompensated to avoid going to court” so he doesn’t have a viable fundamental-fairness argument, wrote Justice David.

As they noted in Curtis, the justices emphasized that there may be factual scenarios that differ from Davis and other relevant precedent that still fall within the parameters of a due process violation, but Denzell’s case is not one of them.
 

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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT