People v. Dalfonso

• Decision Date: 05 December 1974
• Docket Number: No. 59581,59581
• Citation: People v. Dalfonso, 321 N.E.2d 379, 24 Ill.App.3d 748 (Ill. App. 1974)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo DALFONSO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 379

321 N.E.2d 379

24 Ill.App.3d 748

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo DALFONSO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 59581.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Dec. 5, 1974.

Jerome Rotenberg, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Berard Carey, State's Atty., of Cook County, Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and James S. Veldman, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

McGLOON, Justice.

The present appeal is taken by the defendant, Lorenzo Dalfonso, from a trial court order entered September 18, 1973 finding that the defendant remained incompetent to stand trial on the charges of arson and conspiracy pending against him.

We reverse and remand.

Defendant contends on appeal (1) that the trial court erred in ruling that the defendant was unfit to stand trial and (2) that a defendant whose mental capability is maintained through the use of prescribed medication is competent to stand trial.

The defendant, Lorenzo Dalfonso, was indicted and charged with arson and conspiracy to commit arson in connection with the burning of a building on April 13, 1971. Pursuant to the State's Attorney's request, a competency hearing was held on September 26, 1972 concerning defendant's competency to stand trial. At this hearing, the trial court sitting without a jury found the defendant incompetent to stand trial and ordered the defendant committed to the Illinois State Hospital at Chester, Illinois, until such time as he might regain full competency to be tried on the charges pending against him. On May 2, 1973 defendant filed a motion seeking a release from confinement and pursuant to this motion another hearing was held on September 18, 1973 to determine whether the defendant had recovered his competency sufficiently to stand trial. At this hearing the defendant executed a jury waiver, and the trial judge, after hearing all the evidence, entered a finding that the defendant was still not competent to stand trial. It is this ruling of the trial judge of September 18, 1973 which gives rise to the present appeal.

At the hearing in question, the only witness who testified as to the competency of the defendant to stand trial was Dr. Robert A. Reifman, M.D., Assistant Director of the Psychiatric Institute of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Dr. Reifman testified that he had examined the defendant on September 12, 1973 and that on the basis of that examination had concluded that the defendant was able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceeding against him, was able to assist counsel in his own defense, and was mentally fit and competent to stand trial. Dr. Reifman also testified that when he examined the defendant and at the time of the competency hearing the defendant was taking a drug known as Haldol, and that if the defendant failed to receive this drug he could be susceptible to mental agitation of a type that would rneder him unfit to stand trial. However, Dr. Reifman went on to state that if the medication were taken away it was not certain that mental agitation would reappear.

The standard to be used in determining one's fitness for trial is set forth as follows in Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 1005--2--1(a):

'(a) For the purposes of this Section a defendant is unfit to stand trial or be sentenced if, because of a mental or physical condition, he is unable:

(1) to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him; or

(2) to assist in his defense.'

In the case at bar, the only witness who testified at the hearing of September 18, 1973 concerning the competency of the defendant to stand trial was Dr. Reifman who clearly stated that the defendant was able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceeding against him and also able to assist counsel in his own defense. It is true that Dr. Reifman did further state that if the defendant's medication were taken away the defendant would be susceptible to the type of mental agitation that could render him unfit to stand...