ILNews

Justices grant new avenue for relief for killer claiming insanity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man condemned for the 1997 rape and murder of an 18-year-old Franklin College student is entitled to a new avenue of post-conviction relief on his argument that he is not mentally competent to be executed, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

Michael Dean Overstreet’s death sentence remains in force for his conviction in the killing of Kelly Eckart after unsuccessful post-conviction relief pleadings in state and federal courts. Evidence of Overstreet’s competence, including a forensic psychiatrist’s evaluation, led justices to authorize further arguments in Johnson Superior Court that could modify his death sentence.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Rahn K. Bailey, opined that “Overstreet does not have, and does not have the ability to produce, a rational understanding of why the State of Indiana plans to execute him,” Justice Robert Rucker wrote in the order.

The unanimous order denied oral argument before the justices but authorized filing by Sept. 13 of a successive petition for post-conviction relief “for the purpose of presenting the claim that Overstreet is not currently competent to be executed.” A final judgment on the post-conviction petition must be entered by March 3, 2014, justices ordered.

The court relied on its earlier PCR proceeding, Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144, 172 (Ind. 2007), as well as the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007) for guidance in setting a new round of sentencing review.

Eckart’s parents, Dale and Connie Sutton, told IL in 2011 that they believe the death sentence was appropriate for Overstreet. He remains one of 13 inmates on death row at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, according to the Department of Correction.



 
 

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. Thanks for this article. We live in Evansville, IN and are aware of how bad the child abuse is here. Can you please send us the statistics for here in Vanderburgh, County. Our web site is: www.ritualabusefree.org Thanks again

  2. This ruling has no application to Indiana. The tail end of the article is misleading where it states criminal penalties await those who refuse a test. This is false. An administrative license suspension is what awaits you. No more, no less.

  3. Yellow journalism much??? "The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by this fall's presidential election, a campaign in which immigration already has played an outsized role." OUTSIZED? by whose standards? Also this: "In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help immigrants a friendlier reception." Ah, also, did you forget an adjective at the *** marks ahead by any chance? Thinking of one that rhymes with bald eagle? " In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help *** immigrants a friendlier reception."

  4. Definition of furnish. : to provide (a room or building) with furniture. : to supply or give (something) to someone or something. : to supply or give to (someone) something that is needed or wanted. Judge Kincaid: if furnish means provide, and the constitution says the provider in a uni is the township, how on earth are they seperated??

  5. I never filed a law suite. I had no money for a lawyer. In 2010 I presented for MRI/with contrast. The technician stuck my left arm three times with needle to inject dye. I was w/out O2 for two minutes, not breathing, no ambulance was called. I suffered an Embolism ,Myocardia infarction. Permanent memory loss, heart damage. After the event, I could not remember what I did five seconds earlier. I had no-one to help me. I lost my dental hygiene career, been homeless, etc.

ADVERTISEMENT