Opinion ID: 3134244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ill 2d 389, 396 (1985); People v. Lowey, 271 Ill. App. 3d 929,

Text: 933-34 (1995); People v. McBrien, 144 Ill. App. 3d 489, 494-95 (1986). Thus, applying these principles, the general term other medication in section 104--21(a) must be interpreted as meaning other such like medication with reference to psychotropic drugs. See People v. Eubanks, Nos. 1--94--2285, 1--94--2754 (Ill. App. August 13, 1996). This interpretation accords both with law and other construction principles. Section 104--21(a) provides that certain conditions entitle a defendant to a fitness hearing. Because fitness to stand trial refers to a defendant's ability to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or assist in his defense (Kinkead, 168 Ill. 2d at 407; 725 ILCS 5/104--10 (West 1992)), the legislature could only have intended that section 104--21(a) include medications capable of interfering with that ability. Psychotropic drugs are clearly capable of doing so. By other medications under medical direction, the statute recognizes that other medications that have effects like psychotropic drugs are capable of doing so as well. Moreover, the legislature could not have intended an absurdity. Given the ultimate determination in a fitness hearing, it would be absurd for the administering of medications which do not interfere with a defendant's ability to understand and assist the defense to require such a hearing. Psychotropic medication[s] are defined as in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code as medication whose use for antipsychotic, antidepressant, antimanic, antianxiety, behavioral modification or behavioral management purposes is listed in AMA Drug Evaluations, latest edition, or Physician's Desk Reference [PDR], latest edition, or which are administered for any of these purposes. 405 ILCS 5/1--121.1 (West Supp. 1995). The United States Supreme Court has also explained that psychotropic drugs are medications commonly used in treating mental disorders such as schizophrenia, the effect of which is to alter the chemical balance in the brain, the desired result being that the medication will assist the patient in organizing his or her thought processes and regaining a rational state of mind. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 214, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 193, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1032 (1990). Selsun lotion or the other medications petitioner was taking for a nervous stomach or for his vision do not approximate the category of psychotropic drugs described above which affect one's mind. We hold that defendant could not be entitled to a fitness hearing under section 104--21(a) on the basis that he was taking other medication which was like a psychotropic drug. Additionally, on the basis of the record before us, we hold that petitioner would not be entitled to a limited remand to determine the names of two medications he was taking. The two medications were stated to be for a nervous stomach and blurring or blurred vision. Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the Department's record does not indicate that he was then suicidal. These circumstances are not such to compel the conclusion that he was possibly taking psychotropic drugs. Petitioner's request for a fitness hearing or limited hearing is accordingly denied.