Buhring v. State

• Decision Date: 19 September 1983
• Docket Number: No. 1081S313,1081S313
• Citation: 453 N.E.2d 228
• Parties: Jeffrey Alan BUHRING, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 228

453 N.E.2d 228

Jeffrey Alan BUHRING, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1081S313.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 19, 1983.

William F. Carroll, Carroll & Donaldson, Attys., Crown Point, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey Alan Buhring was convicted by a jury in the Lake Superior Court, Criminal Division, of murder and sentenced to a term of fifty-five years imprisonment. Appellant now directly appeals and raises the following two issues for our review:

1. whether the trial court erred by determining that Appellant was competent to stand trial and by refusing to order a fourth competency hearing; and

2. whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant's request to close final argument on the issue of his alleged insanity.

At approximately six o'clock during the evening of June 27, 1979, five-year-old Julie Randolph was playing in the front yard of her parents' home in Merrillville, Indiana. Appellant, a stranger to Julie, walked up to the child, grabbed her and stabbed her repeatedly while holding her on the ground. Julie subsequently was taken to Broadway Methodist Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.

I

Three separate hearings were held prior to Appellant's trial to determine Appellant's competency to stand trial. In addition, the trial court sua sponte ordered two doctors to re-examine Appellant subsequent to the three hearings but prior to trial. At the commencement of Appellant's trial, defense counsel renewed his motions suggesting Appellant's incompetency on the grounds that Appellant had not regained sufficient comprehension to appreciate the proceedings against him and to aid counsel, and that if found competent, Appellant's competency was artificially induced by the administration of the psychotropic drug, Stelazine.

The first time Appellant's competency was brought before the trial court was by way of a defense motion filed February 13, 1980. The trial court at that time appointed psychiatrists Frank Hogle and Lee Periolat to examine Appellant. At a subsequent hearing, Dr. Periolat testified that in his opinion Appellant was competent to stand trial. Dr. Hogle did not testify but the parties stipulated to the admission of his written report. Dr. Hogle's report indicated that he believed Appellant to be incompetent. Dr. Gutierrez, another psychiatrist, was called by the defense and testified that Appellant was incompetent to stand trial. The trial court thereupon found Appellant not competent to stand trial and committed him to the Department of Mental Health.

Dr. H. Matheu, a consulting psychiatrist with the Logansport State Hospital, subsequently filed a report with the trial court. On June 25, 1980, a further competency hearing was ordered. This hearing was held on August 15 and 27. At this hearing, Dr. Matheu and Dr. Periolat testified that they believed Appellant competent to stand trial. Dr. Hogle testified that he believed Appellant to be incompetent. Following this second hearing, the trial court found Appellant to be incompetent and again committed him to the Department of Mental Health.

On December 12, 1980, Dr. Matheu filed a further status report on Appellant and a third competency hearing was ordered. This hearing was held on February 13, 1981. Since Dr. Hogle was not available at this time, Dr. Periolat and Dr. Mohammad Arshad were appointed to examine Appellant. At this hearing, Doctors Periolat, Arshad and Matheu testified that on the basis of their examinations, Appellant was competent to stand trial. Said Doctors further testified that they were aware that Appellant was taking forty milligrams of Stelazine per day. They specifically testified as to the effects of this medication upon Appellant's behavior and thought processes. At the February 13 hearing, Dr. Periolat testified that Appellant was alert, well oriented, in good contact with reality, and apparently had no clinical impediment which might prevent him from communicating with his attorney and standing trial. Dr. Periolat also testified that Stelazine is given in cases involving schizophrenic psychosis and helps a person to think more clearly and more appropriately. Dr. Arshad testified that he examined Appellant on January 24, 1981. He also testified that Stelazine did not have any effect on Appellant's ability to understand what was being said to him and that it did not change Appellant's condition except that: "we get the benefit of the toxic effect of the medication. The toxic effect of the medication is sedation." Dr. Arshad stated that Appellant's thought processes were not altered by the medication and that he believed Appellant to be competent to stand trial. Dr. Arshad further stated that Stelazine could produce a dullness of sensations or a "sort of a lack luster personality" but that he did not notice this dullness in Appellant. Dr. Matheu testified that at the time of his examination, he believed Appellant to be competent. He testified that he prescribed forty milligrams of Stelazine per day for Appellant. He stated that in some cases Stelazine removed or "dampened down" hallucinations and delusions. He described the effect of Stelazine on the thought processes as follows:

"Now, how it effects (sic) the thought processes, for example, I am a sick man and I am hearing a lot of voices. Okay, I thought that people are talking about me. I am preoccupied about that, if it bothers me, and my concentration on the subject might be deminished (sic). Now, if I take stelazine and these symptoms disappear, then I could concentrate more, and I could relate more. This is how taking medication could help individuals in assuming competency."

Dr. Matheu also testified that in his opinion, Appellant would be competent to stand trial without the use of Stelazine. A further noteworthy fact is that Appellant's Stelazine dosage was reduced to fifteen milligrams a day during trial.

At Appellant's request, the jury was informed that Appellant was taking Stelazine at the rate of fifteen milligrams a day. Moreover, the doctors testified before the...