State v. Perry
| Citation | 610 So.2d 746 |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-KP-1324,91-KP-1324 |
| Parties | 3 NDLR P 144 STATE of Louisiana v. Michael Owen PERRY. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1992.
Marcus, J., dissented and filed opinion and would grant rehearing.
Cole, J., dissented with reasons and would grant rehearing.
In order to avoid violation of constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, punishment must not be degrading to dignity of human beings, punishment must not be arbitrarily inflicted, punishment must not be excessive, and punishment must not be unacceptable to contemporary society. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 8; LSA-Const. Art. 1, Sec. 20.
Keith B. Nordyke, June E. Denlinger, McGlinchey, Stafford, Cellini & Lang, Joseph I. Giarrusso, Jr., for applicant.
Richard Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., Douglas P. Moreau, Dist. Atty., Mary P. Jones, Kathleen E. Petersen, for respondent.
The fundamental question raised by this case is whether the state can circumvent the centuries old prohibition against execution of the insane by medicating an incompetent death row prisoner against his will with antipsychotic drugs and carrying out his death sentence while he is under the influence of the drugs. After a hearing to determine whether the death row inmate was competent to be executed, the trial court, in effect, found that the inmate was insane but susceptible to being made able to understand the link between his crime and punishment by antipsychotic drugs. The trial court ordered the state to administer antipsychotic drugs to the prisoner for this purpose, without his consent if necessary. The prisoner did not consent to medication, but applied for review by this court, which denied writs, 543 So.2d 487 (La.1989), and by the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. Perry v. Louisiana, 494 U.S. 1015, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 492 (1990). After entertaining briefs and oral argument, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38, 111 S.Ct. 449, 112 L.Ed.2d 338 (1990). On remand, the trial court reinstated its order. We granted the prisoner's application for a writ of certiorari and stayed the trial court's forcible medication order. State v. Perry, 584 So.2d 1145 (La.1991).
We affirm in part and reverse in part. The trial court's determination that Perry is not competent for execution without the administration of antipsychotic drugs is affirmed. The court's order requiring the state to medicate Perry with antipsychotic drugs without his consent is reversed. The execution of the death sentence is stayed. The state may apply to this court for a modification of the stay of execution of the death sentence if Perry achieves or regains his sanity independently of and without the influence of antipsychotic drugs.
For centuries no jurisdiction has approved the execution of the insane. The state's attempt to circumvent this well-settled prohibition by forcibly medicating an insane prisoner with antipsychotic drugs violates his rights under our state constitution. La. Const.1974 Art. I, Secs. 5, 20. First, it violates his right to privacy or personhood. Such involuntary medication requires the unjustified invasion of his brain and body with discomforting, potentially dangerous and painful drugs, the seizure of control of his mind and thoughts, and the usurpation of his right to make decisions regarding his health or medical treatment. Furthermore, implementation of the state's plan to medicate forcibly and execute the insane prisoner would constitute cruel, excessive and unusual punishment. This particular application of the death penalty fails to measurably contribute to the social goals of capital punishment. Carrying out this punitive scheme would add severity and indignity to the prisoner's punishment beyond that required for the mere extinguishment of life. This type of punitive treatment system is not accepted anywhere in contemporary society and is apt to be administered erroneously, arbitrarily or capriciously.
Michael Owen Perry was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering his mother, father, nephew and two cousins in a senseless criminal episode in 1983. Perry was 28 at the time of his offenses but had continued to live with his parents due to his long history of mental illness. At the age of 16, he was diagnosed as schizophrenic, and he was committed to mental institutions by his parents several times because of his psychotic symptoms. Although the record does not disclose any previous criminal conduct, he escaped from mental facilities twice and was made to sleep in a shed behind his parents' house due to his disruptive conduct.
Perry's mental illness raised legal issues throughout the criminal proceedings. Initially, two sanity commissions were convened to determine his competence to stand trial. State v. Perry, 502 So.2d 543, 547 (La.1986) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872, 108 S.Ct. 205, 98 L.Ed.2d 156 (1987). Upon recommendation of the first commission, Perry was transferred to a state facility for treatment and psychiatric evaluation. Id. at 547-48. After being diagnosed as suffering from a long history of paranoid schizophrenia, Perry was placed on an antipsychotic drug treatment program, primarily consisting of doses of the drug Haldol. Eighteen months later, he was determined to be competent to stand trial, as recommended by the second sanity commission. Id. at 548. Following this, Perry was allowed by the court, contrary to advice of his counsel, to withdraw his insanity plea and proceed to trial on a simple plea of not guilty. Id. at 547, 550.
Perry was convicted of five counts of murder in 1985 and sentenced to death. On appeal this court affirmed his convictions and sentence, but stated that a determination of his competency to be executed "might be in order." State v. Perry, 502 So.2d 543, 564 (La.1987). Following the suggestion of this court, the trial court convened a sanity commission and conducted hearings. The medical experts reported that Perry suffers from an incurable schizoaffective disorder that causes his days to be a series of hallucinations, delusional and disordered thinking, incoherent speech, and manic behavior. These symptoms can be temporarily diminished with antipsychotic drugs, they testified, but his underlying insanity can never be permanently cured or quelled. After receiving this testimony, the court concluded that Perry was competent for execution only while he was being maintained by antipsychotic drugs in the form of Haldol. In effect, the trial court found that without the influence of antipsychotic drugs, Perry is insane and incompetent for execution. Accordingly, the court ordered the state to maintain Perry on this medication "as to be prescribed by the medical staff of said Department [of Corrections] and if necessary to administer said medication forcibly to defendant and over his objection."
After this court denied his writ and appeal, Perry sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court. Perry v. Louisiana, 494 U.S. 1015, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 492 (1990). After full briefing and oral argument, the high court vacated the trial court order and remanded the case to that court for reconsideration in light of Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38, 111 S.Ct. 449, 112 L.Ed.2d 338 (1990). After considering the Supreme Court's remand, and without taking any additional evidence, the trial court reinstated its forcible medication order. Essentially, the trial court concluded that Washington v. Harper is inapplicable to a proceeding to determine competence for execution and does not require a different result from the trial court's original determination. This court granted a writ to review the trial court's action and issued a stay order to prevent the forcible medication of the prisoner. State v. Perry, 584 So.2d 1145 (La.1991).
This case hinges on whether the state constitutionally may forcibly medicate Perry and carry out his death sentence. There is no question but that Perry is incurably insane and incompetent for execution. Without the administration of antipsychotic drugs, Perry cannot pass any known test of competency. Nevertheless, when he is under the influence of antipsychotic drugs Perry sometimes is able to function at a minimum level of rationality. There is no contention by the state that Perry has consented to take the drugs. There is also no claim by Perry that the punishment would be unconstitutional if he were sane. The basic constitutional issue is, therefore, determinative and must be addressed.
The subsidiary issues raised are deferred because they will be rendered moot by our decision that the state's dual objective of forcible medication and execution is unconstitutional. The issues deferred include whether the trial court applied the appropriate standard for measuring competence for execution and whether the evidence in the present record is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the inmate's mental competence can be maintained predictably and consistently with antipsychotic drugs. Moreover, our decision of these subsidiary issues in favor of Perry would not be dispositive of this case because the basic constitutional question would still control whether or not the state on remand would be permitted to medicate Perry and demonstrate while following correct legal precepts that he can be maintained forcibly with drugs at a consistent level of competence for execution.
In Ford v. Wainwright, 477...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. State
...right guarantees the right to make important personal decisions including termination of life-sustaining treatment); Louisiana v. Perry (La.1992), 610 So.2d 746 (state may not violate incompetent death row prisoner's privacy right by medicating prisoner against his will with antipsychotic d......
-
West v. Thomson Newspapers
...initially under our state Constitution; only if they pass muster here need we re-examine them under federal law."); State v. Perry, 610 So.2d 746, 750 (La.1992) ("Greater judicial efficiency and coherence are promoted when we address state [constitutional] law issues first."); City of Portl......
-
Com. v. Sam
...a clear and present danger to oneself or others. With respect to the third factor of Edmunds, appellee's counsel cites Louisiana v. Perry, 610 So.2d 746 (La.1992) (prohibiting medication of inmate against his will to render him competent to be executed), Singleton v. State, 313 S.C. 75, 437......
-
Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
... ... weighed against the State's penological interest; ... however, the inmate must be free from unwarranted medical ... intrusions ... Id. at 89, 437 S.E.2d at 61. The Court cited to ... Louisiana's Supreme Court in State v. Perry , ... which held, "the right to decide what is to be done ... medically with one's brain and body" was contained ... in Louisiana's right to privacy. Perry , 610 ... So.2d 746, 755 (La. 1992) and Singleton , 313 S.C. at ... 89, 437 S.E.2d at 61. Our Court noted that ... ...
-
State constitutional adjudication in a footnote? A critique of the Supreme Court of Louisiana's decision in State v. Kennedy.
...claim under the same standard and reaches a different result in dissent. See id. at 603-12 (Daughtrey, J., dissenting). (99) 610 So. 2d 746 (La. (100) See State v. Kennedy, 957 So. 2d 757, 779 n.24 (La. 2007). (101) Perry, 610 So. 2d at 747. Perry was diagnosed with schizophrenia in his tee......
-
The Costs of Changing Our Minds
...between judicial privilege and workable government to require the privilege be absolute but narrowly tailored).144. State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746, 755 (La. 1992); see also Singleton v. State, 437 S.E.2d 53, 61 (S.C. 1993) ("We hold that the South Carolina Constitutional right of privacy wo......
-
Capital punishment, psychiatrists and the potential "bottleneck" of competence.
...(1) John Mintz & Alfred E. Lewis, Man Arrested Here is Suspect in Five Slayings, WASH. Post, Aug. 2, 1983, at A1. (2) State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746, 748 (La. (3) Ruth Marcus, Justices Order State to Review Medicating Death-Row Insane; Louisiana Wants Inmate Competent for Execution, WAS......
-
The Ethics of Advocacy for the Mentally 111: Philosophic and Ethnographic Considerations
...analyses on this matter, see Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1989); and Perry v. Louisiana, 610 So. 2d 746 (1999). For an in-depth law and social science analysis of competency to be executed in relation to one's right to refuse treatment, see Wl......