Chatman v. Com.
Decision Date | 14 September 1999 |
Docket Number | Record No. 0980-98-2. |
Citation | 30 Va. App. 593,518 S.E.2d 847 |
Parties | Christopher Lyance CHATMAN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
C. Gilbert Hudson, Jr. (Law Offices of C. Gilbert Hudson, Jr., on brief), Emporia, for appellant.
John H. McLees, Jr., Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BENTON and WILLIS, JJ., and COLE, Senior Judge.
Christopher Lyance Chatman (appellant), a juvenile, was charged with delinquency by a petition alleging that he had committed malicious wounding. A juvenile and domestic relations district court (JDR) judge found appellant guilty of the delinquency charge of unlawful wounding. Appellant appealed to the circuit court. In a bench trial, the circuit court found appellant guilty of the delinquency charge of unlawful wounding and committed appellant to the Department of Juvenile Justice.1
On appeal, appellant argues that he was entitled to assert a defense of insanity in the circuit court adjudication of delinquency. He contends the circuit court prevented him from presenting this defense by denying his motion for a psychiatric evaluation at state expense. Finding that the trial court erred, we reverse appellant's adjudication of delinquency and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Appellant and Lamont Waller were students in a public school special education program in Greensville County. Both appellant and Waller were transported to their homes after school in the same school station wagon.
On January 22, 1997, appellant and Waller exchanged angry words at school. After school, both appellant and Waller rode home in the school station wagon. The vehicle stopped at appellant's home. Appellant got out of the vehicle. Although he had been warned not to do so, Waller got ,out of the station wagon to fight appellant. Appellant pulled out a knife and cut Waller in the shoulder. The two exchanged more blows with their fists. Eventually, Waller got back into the station wagon, which left the scene. Waller later received medical treatment for his injury. Appellant was thirteen years old at the time of the incident.2
In his appeal to the circuit court of the JDR court finding of delinquency, appellant filed a motion for a psychiatric evaluation to determine his sanity at the time of the offense. In his brief in support of his motion, appellant asserted that, on the day of the offense, Dr. C.R. Amara found appellant to have homicidal ideations requiring inpatient psychiatric treatment. Appellant was diagnosed with a schizophrenic disorder two days after the incident involving Waller. The evaluator also concluded that appellant exhibited inappropriately aggressive and violent behavior which appeared to be a function of serious psychiatric difficulties.3 The circuit court denied appellant's motion, citing the opportunities for mental health treatment provided under Virginia law in the event appellant was found to be delinquent.
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law, contained in Chapter 11 of Title 16.1 of the Code of Virginia, governs the procedure through which a juvenile is held accountable for his or her actions that would be criminal if committed by an adult. See Code § 16.1-226. Pursuant to these statutes, a juvenile who is less than fourteen years of age may appeal to the circuit court a JDR court finding of delinquency. See Code § 16.1-296(C). A jury trial may then occur upon motion of the juvenile, the prosecutor, or the circuit court judge. See id. When the circuit court renders its final judgment in the appeal, a copy of the judgment is filed with the JDR court and becomes the judgment of the JDR court. See Code § 16.1-297.
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law does not expressly provide for or prohibit an insanity defense at either an adjudicatory hearing in the JDR court or in an appeal to the circuit court upon a finding of delinquency. The Commonwealth contends that because the statutes pertaining to juvenile delinquency make no reference to an insanity defense, the insanity defense is unavailable to juveniles under the age of fourteen.4
The defense of insanity as found in M'Naghten's Case, 10 Cl. and F. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L.1843), had been recognized as the law in Virginia since 1871. See Price v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 452, 459, 323 S.E.2d 106, 108 (1984); Bennett v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 261, 277, 511 S.E.2d 439, 446-47 (1999). To establish an insanity defense in Virginia, the accused must show that "he did not know the difference between right and wrong or that he did not understand the nature and consequences of his acts." Price, 228 Va. at 456, 323 S.E.2d at 108. McCulloch v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 769, 775, 514 S.E.2d 797, 800 (1999).
McCulloch, 29 Va.App. at 773-74,514 S.E.2d at 799. A defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is acquitted of the charged offense but is subject to the disposition defined by Virginia statutes. See Code §§ 19.2-182.2 to 19.2-182.16. Seealso Williams v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 384, 389, 444 S.E.2d 16, 18 (1994) ( ); Harris v. Ballone, 681 F.2d 225, 226 (4th Cir.1982) ( ).
Courts charged with the duty of adjudicating juveniles Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 555-56, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).
Tones v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 335, 341-43, 38 S.E.2d 444, 447 (1946).
In In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), the United States Supreme Court examined the aspects of due process applicable to "proceedings by which a determination is made as to whether a juvenile is a `delinquent' as a result of alleged misconduct on his part, with the consequence that he may be committed to a state institution." The Court found that such proceedings "must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment" as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 30,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Chatman, Record No. 992706.
...evaluation pursuant to Code § 19.2-169.5 and for further proceedings if the Commonwealth be so advised. Chatman v. Commonwealth, 30 Va.App. 593, 601, 518 S.E.2d 847, 851 (1999). The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the provisions of the Code pertaining to the juvenile and domestic relatio......
- Francis v. Francis