Truman v. State
| Decision Date | 15 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 885,885 |
| Citation | 481 N.E.2d 1089 |
| Parties | Alvin TRUMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 321. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Ind., Bev Cummings, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Amy Schaeffer Good, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished memorandum decision, reversed the trial court in its denial of post-conviction relief.
On June 27, 1981, appellant was arrested on a warrant issued by the Wabash Circuit Court and charged with molesting his seven year old step-granddaughter. On January 14, 1982, appellant withdrew a plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty but mentally ill. This plea was entered nearly seven months before the present statute permitting such a plea was passed. The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals holds that it was reversible error to deny post-conviction relief in setting aside such a plea. The majority holds that to accept such a plea was contrary to the statute in force at that time and that such statutes must be strictly construed.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Shields correctly points out that the case should be reversed and remanded but not for the reasons given by the majority. She correctly points out that the present statute, Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-2-5 (Burns 1984 Supp.), although providing for a plea of guilty but mentally ill, in reality adds nothing to a finding of guilty.
She points out another statute, Ind.Code Sec. 11-10-4-2, provides that the Department of Correction shall provide care and treatment for every person committed who is found to be mentally ill. Mental illness is not now, nor ever has been, a defense to crime in Indiana. The defense is the inability to form intent by reason of insanity.
The present statute, Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-2-5, in reality adds absolutely nothing to a finding of guilty. It is of no consequence whatever that the jury or a judge finds a person mentally ill at the same time they find him to be guilty. However, as Judge Shields points out, there clearly was confusion in the mind of the appellant when he entered his plea of guilty but mentally ill. He stated that he "decided to plead guilty but mentally ill in hopes of receiving psychiatric treatment."
Judge Shields further correctly observed that this cause should be remanded for findings required by Ind.R.P.C. 1, Sec. 6. As she states in her dissenting opinion, "[t]he fact Truman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. State
...because of the failure to find the defendant "guilty but mentally ill." Such a finding is not a defense to a crime. Truman v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 1089. It is therefore unnecessary for us to evaluate whether the jury's failure to return this verdict was contrary to 6. Admission of......
-
Galloway v. State
...underlying the insanity defense is that a legally insane person is unable to form the requisite criminal intent. See Truman v. State, 481 N.E.2d 1089, 1089-90 (Ind.1985) ("the inability to form intent by reason of insanity" is a defense to crime in Indiana). 7 "Preponderance of the evidence......
-
Heald v. State
...statute, Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-2-5, permitting a finding of "guilty but mentally ill" adds nothing to a finding of guilty. Truman v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 1089. However, the jury did not return a verdict of "guilty but mentally ill." The jury verdict was guilty as charged on both cou......
-
Hale v. State
...in the context of the "mentally ill pretending to be mentally ill." Mental illness is not a defense to criminal conduct. Truman v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 1089. This was recognized by the Indiana Legislature when it enacted Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-2-5, which provides that a person may be......