Opinion ID: 1678012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: treatment for trial

Text: Appellant argues that if he is found to be mentally ill and a danger to others, then civil commitment is appropriate, rather than involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medications to render him competent for trial. However, the Supreme Court in Riggins v. Nevada, ___ U.S.___,___, 112 S.Ct. 1810, 1815, 118 L.Ed.2d 479 (1992), also offered an alternative theory under which the State might [be] able to justify administering medication to an unwilling pretrial detainee. Treatment might be justifiable if the treatment was medically appropriate, and if the State could establish that it could not obtain an adjudication of Riggins' guilt or innocence by using less intrusive means. Id. Constitutional power to bring an accused to trial is fundamental to a scheme of `ordered liberty' and prerequisite to social justice and peace. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 347, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1063, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). Dr. Martin testified that appellant would be unable to cooperate with his attorney in the preparation of his case without treatment with the antipsychotic medication. Under this standard, appellant could be forced to undergo treatment if the State showed that the medication would enable him to stand trial. We note that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990), wrote a concurring opinion in Riggins where he expressed his concern over permitting the treatment of defendants with antipsychotic drugs for the sole purpose of rendering them competent to stand trial. If the State cannot render the defendant competent without involuntary medication, then it must resort to civil commitment, if appropriate, unless the defendant becomes competent through other means. If the defendant cannot be tried without his behavior and demeanor being affected in this substantial way by involuntary treatment, in my view the Constitution requires that society bear this cost in order to preserve the integrity of the trial process. Riggins, ___ U.S. at___, 112 S.Ct. at 1820. Although there may be situations where we might agree with Justice Kennedy that civil commitment would be proper, the present case is not such a situation. The trial court correctly noted that civil commitment was not an appropriate option because appellant was serving a sentence from a prior conviction. The delay caused by waiting for appellant to complete his sentence before beginning civil commitment proceedings would be unreasonable given that treatment with antipsychotic drugs had shown to improve appellant's condition in the past.