Court Opinion

ID: 9571130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:29:13.459547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:17.798584
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice.
I respectfully dissent.
The principles relied upon by the majority are sound where a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, confined in a mental health institution until competent and tried within a reasonable time after competency is found to have been regained. There can be no quarrel with the notion that mental treatment of a defendant is a valid reason for delay.
I. In all of the cases cited by the majority which involve this fact situation defendant was either still held as incompetent or was tried with reasonable promptness after the disability was removed. No case considers the problem of delay after the alienist notifies the State of his opinion that defendant is now competent to stand trial and a new unreasonable delay develops due to the State’s unwillingness or inability to proceed.
Stated otherwise, the delay of 19 months while defendant was considered incompetent to stand trial is acceptable and does not constitute an unconstitutional denial of speedy trial. The cases cited by the majority support such a finding. But a delay of an additional five years after State alienists notified a State prosecutor and State judge that competency had, in their *139opinion, been restored, raises a new and entirely different problem.
The closest case in point of fact is probably our own State v. Jackson, 252 Iowa 671, 108 N.W.2d 62 (1961) but Jackson is also distinguishable on its facts (in addition to change in both statutory and case law since 1961). There the alienist had a private opinion as to defendant’s competency almost immediately on admission to the mental facility but did not certify mental competence until almost two years later. Thereafter defendant was promptly returned for trial, tried and found guilty.
Here the written notification of resumption of competency was given to appropriate State officials on December 31, 1964 but the State took no action until February 5, 1970. Then a lawyer was at long last appointed. Habeas corpus was instituted, trial had and defendant was found competent. Defense counsel immediately moved for dismissal of the instant case because of denial of a speedy trial.
The factual recitation in the majority opinion can lead to but one conclusion. The five-year delay was wholly due either to inefficiency or lack of communication on the part of the State officials involved.
County Attorney Hildreth’s letter as quoted by the majority is at once revealing and raises the true issue here; i. e., what was the duty of the State when the alienist notified its responsible officials that defendant was competent to • stand trial ? It is submitted a county attorney cannot properly take the position that Hildreth took; that is, disagree with the alienist’s opinion and effectively deny prompt legal determination of the issue of competency.
In State v. Jackson, supra, we said the county attorney could do nothing because competency was not certified. Here competency was certified in writing. It is no answer to demean the certification because it was a letter to the county attorney and the judge rather than a “warrant” to the sheriff. The sheriff’s duties were purely The executory and judicial power was in the county attorney and judge. A holding that the argument about the technical method of communication between various State officials provides an excuse for unconscionable delay violates due process as I see it. ministerial in any event.
Also, all of the evidence in the record about defendant’s violent propensities while still in the Mental Health Institute during the five-year period is immaterial. When the restoration of competency was certified by the proper State psychiatrists the State had a positive duty to determine whether this new finding permitted trial or not. On that issue defendant’s behavior, her symptoms and her condition were all relevant. But the State did not provide a proper judicial forum for such determination. Instead technical objections were raised between various State officers. These objections prevented determination of the issue.
At this point we cannot excuse by implication the action of the county attorney and the judge by reference to the conflicting reports and suggestions. The duties of the county attorney and the judge were clear. They did not need either the advice of the doctors or the attorney general on the matter. It was their duty to make a judicial determination of competency or incompetency after notice and hearing.
The majority quotes a portion of Mr. Justice Brennan’s special concurrence in Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26. Justice Brennan’s long and thoughtful concurrence contains much more. Another pertinent quotation follows:
“When is governmental delay reasonable? Clearly, a deliberate attempt by the government to use delay to harm the accused, or governmental delay that is ‘purposeful or oppressive,’ is unjustifiable. See United States v. Provoo, supra; Pollard v. United States, supra. The same may be true of any governmental delay that is unnecessary, whether intentional or *140negligent in origin. A negligent failure by the government to ensure speedy trial is virtually as damaging to the interests protected by the right as a purposeful failure; when negligence is the cause, the only interest necessarily unaffected is our common concern to prevent deliberate misuse of the criminal process by public officials. Thus the crucial question in determining the legitimacy of governmental delay may be whether it might reasonably have been avoided — whether it was unnecessary. To determine the necessity for governmental delay, it would seem important to consider, on the one hand, the intrinsic importance of the reason for the delay, and, on the other, the length of the delay and its potential for prejudice to interests protected by the speedy trial safeguard. * *
By the above criterion the five-year delay here was clearly unreasonable. Justice Brennan also points out that silence or inaction can no longer be construed as an implied relinquishment of the right to a speedy trial. It would be hard to find a fact situation where implied relinquishment is less apropos. Defendant was 18 years old at time of admission, held as mentally incompetent for 19 months, still apparently mentally disturbed, low I.Q., without legal advice or a realistic chance to get legal advice. Such a patient simply cannot be penalized because she did not, as required by State v. Jackson, supra, seek a writ of habeas corpus.
There is no need to pursue this subject further. The facts speak for themselves. Defendant was denied a speedy trial due to the incompetence or lack of communication between State officials. We should not be reluctant to so hold where the record is so clear.
II. No case is decided in a vacuum. Undoubtedly this court and society’s concern for continued institutionalization of this young woman is strong. She should be institutionalized until she is cured, if a cure is possible. But this does not justify a murder trial when her constitutional rights have been violated.
It is not necessary that every criminal case involving the mental competency of an individual must be tried. We have evidence of mental incompetency and institutionalization for three years prior to the crime and for seven years after the crime. If the jury is apprised, as they should be, of the existence of section 785.19, Iowa Code, 1971,1 they will know a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity will not be the last act of the drama. The court still has the power and duty to determine whether she should be readmitted to society. If the evidence is as we have been given it, the jury cannot find this woman sane at the time of commission of the offense. This must be true under the M’Naughten or any other rule.
Be that as it may, we have a duty in this case to order a dismissal. The State can and undoubtedly will utilize statutory procedures to continue defendant’s confinement on grounds she is mentally ill, if such be the case. It is one thing to be adjudged incompetent; it is quite another to be branded a murderess. I would order dismissal.
STUART, RAWLINGS and Le-GRAND, JJ., join in Division I of this dissent.

I. “Acquittal on ground of mental illness — commitment. If the defense is mental illness of the defendant, the jury must be instructed, if it acquits him on that ground, to state that fact in its verdict. The court may thereupon, if the fendant is in custody, and his discharge is found to be dangerous to the public peace and safety, order liim committed to one of the mental health institutes or the Iowa security medical facility, or retained in custody, until he demonstrates good mental health and is considered no longer dangerous to the public peace and safety or to himself.”