2021 Ohio 995
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In Jan 2011 Wayne County police found Stutzman’s parents shot to death; Stutzman was arrested with parents’ ID/cards, a withdrawal check payable to him, and bloodied clothing; DNA and handwriting evidence linked him to the scene.
- Stutzman was indicted on capital murder charges; defense raised competency and retained Dr. Galit Askenazi, who diagnosed incompetence; the court committed Stutzman to Twin Valley for restoration.
- Multiple forensic evaluations followed. State experts (Drs. Smith, Soehner, Tilley, Eshbaugh) largely opined Stutzman was malingering; Dr. Askenazi consistently concluded he was incompetent based on objective tests (SIRS, ILK) and observation.
- The trial court repeatedly found Dr. Askenazi more credible and concluded Stutzman was a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization and incompetent to assist counsel. This Court remanded once for the trial court to make factual findings.
- On remand the trial court issued a detailed entry reiterating its reliance on Dr. Askenazi’s testing, credentials, and observations; the State appealed arguing an abuse of discretion. The Ninth District affirmed.
- Concurring and dissenting opinions: concurrence criticized reliance on older testing and a non-prescribing expert’s medication observations but deferred under the abuse-of-discretion standard; dissent would reverse, finding the court ignored treating clinicians and relied on stale or misapplied testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stutzman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard and burden for competency | Trial court abused discretion in finding incompetence despite overwhelming contrary evidence | Stutzman is incompetent and experts supporting him are credible | Court affirms: defer to trial court; some reliable, credible evidence supports incompetence |
| Weight given to testimony about medications | Court erred in crediting Askenazi (non-prescriber) over treating psychiatrists about meds' purpose/effect | Askenazi relied on observed improvement with antipsychotics and clinical history | Court: even if meds issue favored State, other evidence supports trial court’s credibility choice and finding |
| Interpretation and validity of objective malingering tests (SIRS/ILK) | Askenazi improperly invalidated SIRS results and used subjective standards; Tilley’s recent testing showed probable malingering | Askenazi used ILK and SIRS results with clinical judgment to conclude not malingering | Court: trial court reasonably credited Askenazi’s interpretation and her objective testing; her expertise provided competent, credible evidence |
| Reliance on family mental-health history | It was improper to rely on mother’s schizophrenia and probabilistic inheritance without scientific support | Family history relevant to diagnosis and was part of expert’s basis for opinion | Court: family history was one factor among others; even if given less weight, outcome supported by other evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (competency standard: ability to consult with counsel with rational and factual understanding)
- State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (2008) (burden on defendant; appellate review requires some reliable, credible evidence supporting trial court)
- State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (1995) (restates Dusky standard)
- State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) (deference to trial court’s factual and credibility determinations)
- State v. Roberts, 137 Ohio St.3d 230 (2013) (competency is a question of fact; appellate review limited)