*1 the chain of mortgage within identify a Joseph CORCORAN, Appellant E. recording of
title, before but recorded (Petitioner simply Both are mortgagor. below), deed to the suggestion of malice with no omissions subrogation however trickery. key The Indiana, Appellee Preservation result. equitable
is an STATE (Defendant below). record intervening creditors who rights of think, is, equita- plainly we their interests No. 02S00-0304-PD-00143. occurred Osterman. This is what ble. (On hand, the Owenses seek the other Supreme of Indiana. precisely claim. This is leapfrog a senior designed Jan. subrogation equitable what prevent. best, negligent EquiVantage
At mortgage the Owens
failing to discover and noted the mort- was recorded
which index before the deed
gagor-mortgagee How- Nally was recorded.
Mr. and Mrs.
ever, does not rise the level this error Subrogation § 18 C.J.S.
culpability. 83
(2000) ("The person that a seek- mere fact negligent does not bar
ing subrogation was negli- relief where such
him or her from interests and to his or her own
genee is as the interest of prejudicially not affect
does rights subrogation is person to whose not allow the Ow- Equity should
sought"). ele- gain unexpected an mortgage
ens negli- because of the priority
vated status assignee that EquiVantage or its
genee of harm. 4 American Law no
did Owens (1952) ("subsequent § Property 16.150 permitted not be
lien holders should mishap or carelessness
gain another's fortui- purely would be granting
when thus accidental").
tous
Conclusion trial re- judgment of the court is remanded for further This case is
versed. opinion. consistent with C.J., DICKSON,
SHEPARD, RUCKER,
SULLIVAN, concur. JJ. *2 Carpenter, K.
Susan Public Defender Indiana, McFadden, Deputy Joanna Public Defender, IN, Indianapolis, Attorneys for Appellant. Carter, Attorney General of
Steve Indiana, Creason, Stephen Deputy R. At- General, IN, torney Indianapolis, Attor- neys Appellee.
SULLIVAN,
Justice.
Corcoran,
Joseph E.
of four
convicted
death,
murders and sentenced
indicated
put
that he believed he should be
to death
legal
and waived
his crimes
review of his convictions and sentence.
stay in accor-
requested
posi-
peared
took
Public Defender
The State
(H) of
competent to make
was not
rule.
that he
dance with section
respon-
trial court with
that decision.
H provides:
Section
to be
this case found Corcoran
sibility for
*3
(80)
thirty
days following com-
Within
Defender
the
Public
and
State
competent
rehearing, private
counsel re-
pletion
Recently,
that determination.
appealed
by
tained
the inmate or the State Public
of further
recanted
waiver
Corcoran
(by
by special assis-
deputy
Defender
of this
now seeks dismissal
review and
interest)
tant
in the event of a conflict of
forth in this
reasons set
appeal. For the
in the trial
appearance
shall enter an
re-
deny
recent
we
Corcoran's
opinion,
court, advise the trial court of the intent
the trial
and affirm
quest for dismissal
relief, and
petition
for
competency.
determination
court's
request
Supreme
the
Court
to extend
Background
death sen-
stay
the
of execution
the
brother, his sister's
killed his
Corcoran
request
....
the
to extend
tence
When
at
fiancé,
men in an incident
and two other
received,
stay
Supreme
Court
He was convicted of
home.
his sister's
a
will direct the trial court
submit
1999,
May,
in
murder
four counts of
management
consistent
case
schedule
sought ap
to death. Corcoran
sentenced
35-50-2-9(0)
ap-
§
with Ind.Code
sentence;
his death
only of
pellate review
proval.
This
challenge the convictions.1
he did not
2, 2008,
De-
April
On
the State Public
Corcoran v.
affirmed the sentence.
Court
stay
a
in
appeared
requested
fender
(Ind.2002).
State,
Corcor
yers standing not to raise do have The State Public Defender attacks the other issues on Corcoran's behalf.2 trial competency court's determination on First, grounds. argues three she that the 16, 2004, November Corcoran filed a On applied improper trial court an standard to Court, request accompanied by this with Second, competency. con- determine she indicating pur- an his intention to affidavit tends as a factual matter that Corcoran is all, asking relief after post-conviction sue incompetent post-conviction to waive re- appeal us to dismiss this of the trial court's any competency under view standard this competency determination as moot and re- Third, might employ. Court choose to she post-convie- turn that court for this case to a maintains result of Corcoran's proceedings. incompetence, knowingly, he could not vol- supra, As discussed Corcoran has never untarily, intelligently right waive his petition post-conviction filed a for relief post-conviction relief. has, and the time to do so as best as we determine, passed. can now See Crim. R. A 24(H) (petitions post-conviction for relief in days capital argues proper cases must be filed within 80 The State that the stan- following completion rehearing)3 determining dard for the level of compe- Therefore, ability tency necessary of Corcoran to ob for Corcoran waive his tain post-conviction review of his convie- review was that set States, point dependent tions or sentence at this in Dusky forth v. United 362 U.S. (1960) upon 402, 788, by the resolution of issues raised this 80 4 L.Ed.2d (per S.Ct. 824 challenge essentially 2. "'The State does not the Public invitation to conduct what is standing appeal competency Defender's post-conviction review that Corcoran does not challenge determination. While a that stand- pursue." Appellee want to Br. of at 18-19. ing may possible, absent the State be- litigant's competency lieves that in a death 3. The determination of the timeliness of penalty case must be reviewable. Just as an petition initially relief is a standing attorney question a defen- court, matter for the not this trial, competency dant's to stand so too may Court. While there be some basis for attorney standing should that to raise proceed noiwithstanding Corcoran to Indeed, appeal. long the issue on that has 24(H), time deadline of Criminal Rule it is not practice only been the not in this State but apparent Consequently, proceed we us. such, nationally as well. As the State believes assumption petition post-convic- that a standing that the Public Defender's in this by point tion relief filed Corcoran at this only competency case is limited to the issue ultimately timely would be dismissed as not may only and all other issues be raised 24(H). under Rule. Criminal so; Corcoran. Corcoran has not done Court should decline the Public Defender's
659
curiam).
Dusky
the Rees and
standards because the
Supreme
Dusky,
under each
would
analytical
a defendant
outcomes
test
held that
present
trial
if "he has sufficient
stand
Horn,
same);
v.
2004
be the
Michael
WL
lawyer
to consult with
438678, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3702
of rational understand
degree
reasonable
(M.D.Pa.2004) (relying
princi
on both the
well as
... has a rational as
ing-and
Dusky to determine com
ples of Rees and
understanding
factual
challenge);
a collateral
petency
forego
402,
80 S.Ct.
him." 362 U.S.
against
Dutton,
949,
F.Supp.
Groseclose v.
relies on this standard
The State
(M.D.Tenn.1984) (stating
Dusky
n.
with Indiana
it is consistent
part because
to the Rees com
analytically equivalent
35-86-3-1, Indiana's statuto
Code section
test).
petency
standard.4
ry
competency
trial
argues
Public Defender
The State
Federal courts have been unwill
standard is
competency
proper
ing
distinguish
or unable to
between
Peyton,
384 U.S.
announced Rees
Dusky
Rees and
because both
standards
(1966)
(per
4. Indiana defense, pro- the trial shall the defendant's part finds that "[if relevant that ceed." to understand defendant has B forego post-conviction review of his sen- tence, execution, thereby hastening his previously required been We premised was on his desire to be relieved compe a court's to review pain experiences of the that he believes he tency capital proceed determination as a of his result delusions. To follow the State, ing. Timberlake experts' logic, decision to fore- Corcoran's (Ind.2001).5 Timberlake, we held go post-conviction review eannot be ration- competency court's delusions, upon al if based which are findings high afforded a level of defer irrational. reviewing court. The court's ence only "if decision will disturbed the evi Corcoran, however, made no statement only dence is without conflict and leads experts evaluating him indi contrary a conclusion to the result of the cating appeals that he wished to end his post[-Jconviction court." Id. escape paranoid order to delusions.7 prison medical records and the court here ac The testimony expert of each indicated that his knowledged findings its written psychotic symptoms being were controlled from a Corcoran suffers illness. through psychiatric various medications. State also concedes Corcoran suf spoke directly Corcoran himself to his rea fers from a mental illness. At the compe pursuing post-conviction sons not re tency hearing, the State Public Defender view and the contention that his delusions presented testimony of three mental prompting were his actions at the post- experts,6 health each of whom concluded hearing conviction stating: from paranoid Corcoran suffers *6 schizophrenia. symptoms One of the See, my I want to appeals waive be- condition, according Corcoran's to the I guilty cause am of murder. I think experts, three are recurrent delusions that that I should be executed for I what Department prison guards of Correction suppos- have done and not because I am are him torturing through the use of an whatey- edly tortured with ultrasound or machine, him causing ultrasound substan I guilty er. am of murder. I should be pain twitching. tial and uncontrollable executed. That all there is to it. That diagnosis,
On the of this all basis three is what I believe. I believe the death experts just concluded Corcoran was penalty punishment unable is a for four murder, make concerning a rational decision counts of and I believe that I legal proceedings confronting him. Each should guilty be executed since am expert stated that Corcoran's decision to four counts murder. Timberlake, psychologist, 6. Kaplan, Clinical Dr. Robert G. any: we stated that Parker, psychiatrist, George forensic Dr. incompetence post-conviction claim of ain neuro-psychologist, clinical Dr. Edmund C. (1) proceeding presents two distinct issues: Haskins, separately each examined Corcoran. [petitioner "incompetent," whether is] expert Each reviewed Corcoran's mental prepara- unable to assist his counsel in the health records and conducted interviews with tion of his case and to understand the na- coming him in to their conclusions. post-conviction proceedings, ture of the (2) "competence," whether as that term is Kaplan's 7. Drs. and Haskins's conclusions addressing understood cases were derived from letters wrote to in defen- Corcoran trial, process rights dant's due at is re- attorneys stating willingness and sister quired post-conviction proceedings. put gain to be to death to a sense of relief (Ind.2001). prison
753 N.E.2d from life. Question: you Do understand that 89). Hr'g Tr. Ct. (Super. waiving appeals, you going these are prompted that his delusions explicit denial (his execution) rela- happen make that waive his him to tively that his death reasoning soon? and his review crime with the is commensurate sentence Yes, I Corcoran: understand. (the to which both conclusion he committed Question: you Do understand that jury judge trial court original process opportunity is the appellate came), for this Court impossible it makes you fight stay alive? is without that "the evidence conclude Yes, I understand. Corcoran: con only to a conclusion and leads conflict to ac- Question: you willing And post[-lconviction of the trary to the result the sentence that was handed down cept Timberlake, at 597. court." by this Court? Moreover, evidence there is substantial - Correct. aware of his Corcoran: was of record of his consequences and the legal position 18). Hr'g. Tr. at post-convic- forego ques- then whether Coreor- review. When asked respect to the entire tioned Corcoran legal to understand his capacity an has the history Corcoran stated that of his case. Parker, George who evaluat- Dr. position, convicted aware that he had been he was post- for his preparation ed Corcoran four crimes. He related he capital hearing stated: conviction of his initial direct purpose understood the of the very clear awareness He has Court to appeal Supreme to the Indiana he has He is aware status of his case. that his his death sentence and review He is aware to death. been sentenced judge unsuccessful. The appeal had been He appeals process. he is in the following questions order then asked the memory of the events good level of awareness to ascertain Corcoran's time of the place taken from the taking trial, sentencing to the - to the offense place: through the more exten- and then phase, *7 you that understand [Do] The Court: phase. He is aware appeals sive your attempt last these how attorneys' positions how, this case? to review over the course attorneys changed Yes, I understand. Corcoran: appeals pro- then [the] of the trial and So, good understanding he has a cess. you Do also The Court: understand at of what is issue. here, it neces- that if the review were 48). unsuccessful, that Hr'g Tr. at Dr. Robert sary up appeal, Corcoran, tes- who also evaluated be executed? Kaplan, you would by not was aware that tified that Corcoran Yes, I understand. Corcoran: review that continuing with anyone, Mr. Corcor- The Has Court: executed. he would be an, your rights to waive you forced directly by questioned Corcoran was appeal? attorney presiding and the both the State's No. Corcoran: pro- awareness of the judge regarding his anyone threatened Has The Court: position. The ceedings legal and his your rights appeal? you to waive ques- attorney following asked the State's tions: No. Corcoran: anybody you, any- appreciate gravity legal position Did tell of his
The Court: all, you body you get consequences tell would and the of his choice to you if more favorable treatment waived waive further review. The your right appeal? portions of the record described and set supra forth are also sufficient evidence to No.
Corcoran: support court's deter- that the The Court: You understand mination Corcoran made his choice your ap- left are sitting two ladies knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently. by represent you? pointed Court Right, yes. Corcoran: legal posi Corcoran's awareness of his you judg- their The Court: Do trust tion and his to formulate a rational ment? justification forgoing post-con them, disagree I I
Corcoran: with but viction review make him judgment trust their waive such review under either Rees or you disagree Dusky. supports The What do The evidence the trial with them about? court's conclusion that Corcoran has both a understanding appreci rational of and can They
Corcoran: didn't have to call a Further, legal position. ate his the evi competency hearing, they any- but did conclusively dence does not indicate that way. disagree calling compe- tency hearing. decision in a was not made Thus, rational manner. we are unable to disagreed
The Court: You with them conclude that "the evidence as a whole filing that motion? unerringly unmistakably to a lead{[s] Corcoran: Correct. opposite post- reached you The And understand what Court: court," conviction and so we affirm its (defense attorneys') their responsibilities State, competency finding. Timberlake v. are? N.E.2d at (citing Harrison Yes. Corcoran: State, (Ind.1999)). deputy And what at- [the Court: torney general's] responsibilities are? II
Corcoran: Yes. challenging addition to post- my responsibili- The Court: And what conviction court's competency determina ties are? tion, the State Public Defender raises two Corcoran: Yes. First, additional claims. the State Public you The Court: And know what we Defender contends the Constitution today? are doing here *8 and the Indiana death penalty statute re Corcoran: Yes. quired this Court's "review of issues re doing The Court: What were we here garding Corcoran's convictions" even today? though affirmatively he waived such re Determining my competen- Corcoran: Second, view. the State Public Defender cy whether or not I am able to make a maintains that it would be unconstitutional decision or not. to severely mentally person, execute "a ill 87-88). Hr'g Tr. at Both the such as Corcoran." post-conviction State's and judge's ques- State, tioning of Corcoran reaffirm The as noted in 2 testimony supra footnote text, of Dr. Parker that accompanying Corcoran was able to and contends
663
Timberlake,
judicata.'")
(quoting
is not entitled
Public Defender
State
597-98).
at
N.E.2d
proceeding.
in this
claims
litigate these
point.
on this
the State
agree with
We
IH
authorize this
did not
himself
Corcoran
litigate
post-conviction
To
required
the timeframe
within
proceeding
II,
in Part
claims discussed
24(H)
Rule
and without
by Criminal
would need to authorize such
himself
in this
the trial court
authority, neither
in
proceeding:
Background,
As discussed
jurisdiction
nor this Court
proceeding
recently indicated a
swpra, Corcoran has
relief.
post-conviction
claims for
to review
appears
it
to us that
desire to do so but
(A1(8)
post-convie-
petition
R.
P-C
See
filing
petition
post-
the deadline for
in a form in
be submitted
tion relief "shall
long
passed.
relief has
since
conviction
with the standard
compliance
substantial
24(H).
procedural pos
R.
See Crim.
peti-
rule .... The
to this
appended
form
precedent
ture of
case and our
oath and the
be made under
tion shall
State,
Judy
v.
275 Ind.
verify the correctness
petitioner shall
(1981),
upon
cause us to reflect
wheth
recognize
we
petition."). While
sen
er we should extend to individuals
Defender
that the State Public
appreciate
post-conviction
tenced
death automatic
in the
belief
these claims
sincere
raises
review in addition to automatic review on
did not
incompetent
that Corcoran
appeal.
direct
voluntarily,
intelligently
knowingly,
State,
had
Judy
In
v.
the defendant
review,
right
post-conviction
waive his
convicted of four counts of murder
been
to over-
alone is not sufficient
that belief
Judy, 416 N.E.2d
and sentenced to death.
requirement.
the rule's
come
100. After his conviction and sentenc
permitted
that he be
ing, Judy requested
event,
had we found Corcoran
Judy
Id.
found
appeal.
to waive his
We
otherwise not
incompetent or
re
appeals,
to waive his
but
intelligently
voluntarily, and
knowingly,
to allow him to do so without
fused
review,
post-conviction
waived
had
to ensure that his sentence
review
would have remanded
we in all likelihood
held
imposedfairly.8 Id. at
We
been
court for its review
to the
im
cannot
that "the death sentence
be
But we feel constrained
of these claims.
until it has
anyone
this State
posed
say
appear
contentions
both
and found to
by this Court
been reviewed
claims of error
free-standing
constitute
and the
with the laws of this State
comport
post-convic-
not
available for
that would
federal constitu
of our state and
principles
State,
review.
Williams
tions." Id.
(Ind.2004) ("If
issue is
N.E.2d
society's
inter-
appeal, a claim
not raised on direct
In addition
promoting
certainty
capital punish-
trial counsel is
that when
ineffective assistance
est
in light
imposed,
appropriate
in a
it is
presented
ment is
properly
rule,
character
of the offense and
general
'most
of the nature
proceeding, but as
offender,
automatic
are not avail- of the
free-standing claims
error
unavail-
issues
would assure that
be-
review
postconviction proceeding
in a
able
*9
at trial
or otherwise not raised
and res
able
of the doctrines of waiver
cause
Statistics,
Justice,
Thirty-seven
the 38 states that allow
Bulle-
8.
of
Bureau of Justice
of
cap-
appellate
penalty require
(2000).
review of
death
Capital
3
tin:
Punishment
Dep't
U.S.
and sentences. See
ital convictions
checkpoint,
safeguard
of the
a
an additional
fil-
propriety
sentence
upon
bear
tering
impurities.
out the
A defendant
The State Public De
would be reviewed.
likely
wrongfully
is less
to be
sentenced
here that we review Cor-
request
fender's
stage.
to death after each
Information
appeal
of review on direct
coran's waiver
gained
completion
of each
relating
of
to his convictions and the
issues
stage. Any
sug-
other conclusion would
constitutionality
the execution of a se
of
gest
[previous] proceeding
that each
verely mentally ill
illustrates this
person
purpose
serves no valuable
and would
free-standing
claims of
point. While
degrade
proceeding
the entire
error,
capital
unlikely
these contentions would
nothing
game
more than a random
of
review, they
post-conviction
available for
Therefore,
stage
chance.
each
because
could well form the basis
claims of
reduces the chance that a defendant has
ap
of trial or direct
ineffective assistance
death,
inappropriately
been
sentenced to
peal
generally
counsel. See
v.
Woods
arbitrary application
the risk of
(Ind.1998) (conclud
State,
665 adopt to execute him And we decline wants the State coran consent. coran's willing I pain. the am not post- order to end automatic extend that would policy all death sentences. review him. conviction accommodate seek rehear- are entitled parties on places great weight The majority in accordance with this decision ing from representation that he is own In the event Rule 54. Appellate Indiana forgo fur- and wishes not incompetent denied, this or sought rehearing is not review, of his not because judicial ther day the 30th an order on enter shall Court delusions, rather because he but paranoid review, appellate completion following pun- murder and should be guilty of this i.e., of the date to occur the later to the "Corcor- According majority, ished. sought or the is not rehearing if his legal position of his an's awareness an execu- setting rehearing is denied date justification a rational ability to formulate 24(H). Rule date. See Criminal review forgoing SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON such review competent him waive make RUCKER, J., dis- BOEHM, JJ., concur. Op. ..." at 662. opinion. separate with
sents Supreme Court Peyton, In v. the Rees party's of a 'that in the context declared Justice, RUCKER, dissenting. right appeals his to further ability to waive I believe dissent because respectfully determine, pe- "whether [the a court must his waive is not Corcoran po- appreciate capacity titioner] review. a rational choice with and make sition years several sentencing hearing At his abandoning fur- continuing or respect to that Corcoran found trial court ago, the the other hand wheth- litigation or on ther cireumstance mitigating proved "has disease, from a mental suffering er he is a men influence of under the that he was may substantially disorder, which or defect at the time disturbance emotional tal or premises." capacity affect his 26, July committed murders were L.Ed.2d 312, 314, 86 S.Ct. U.S. State, Corcoran 1997." added). curiam) (1966) (emphasis (per (Ind.2002). cireum- Although the one than slightly different This test trial weight, the little assigned was stance States, 362 Dusky v. United announced Engum's that "Dr. found nonetheless 788, 4 L.Ed2d 824 402, 80 S.Ct. U.S. with the consistent at trial was opinion con- (1960) curiam), the Court where (per experts appointed of the Court opinions determining com- the standard sidered per from a suffered that the Defendant Dusky In trial to stand petency disorder, personal paranoid sonality either competen- [for that the "test stated dis disorder, schizotypal personality ity pres- he has sufficient must be whether cy] July that since apparent It is Id. order." lawyer with ability to consult with ent deterio state has 1997 Corcoran's understand- degree of rational reasonable that his much so significantly. So rated as well has a rational he ing-and whether developed has now personality disorder understanding proceed- factual as In schizophrenia. paranoid full-blown into Id. at 402. him." ings against mentally ill. short, seriously view, ability to consult my manifest mental illness does his And how understanding to have an lawyer one's paranoid under the itself? Corcoran quite is not legal torturing prison guards delusion make a rational ability to result, Cor- As sound waves. him with same *11 judicial forgo decision to additional review. coran was not to make a ra- It not inconceivable that a is defendant tional concerning his litigation. may ability the consult with coun testimony Their point should be sel and have of given understanding credence. The first mental health complete against yet, him and proceedings be professional testify was Doctor Robert defect, cause of a disease or make Kaplan, G. psychologist. clinical After an regarding irrational decision the pursuit documents, reviewing voluminous includ- See, litigation. e.g., of further Dennis ex ing psychological reports of several rel. v. Budge, 378 F.3d 888n. 4 doctors, Butko other and after interviewing Cor- (9th Cir.2004) (maintaining proper that the coran himself for approximately four question applied Rees to a hours, defendant Kaplan Dr. reached certain conclu- suffering mental illness but understand sions. I recount the following exchange ing "If per is: in some detail: suffering son is from a mental disease or Okay. you [Defense Do think Counsell prevent defect which does not him from capacity Mr. Coreoran appre- understanding legal position his and the ciate the legal position of these him, options available does that disease things? defect, nevertheless, prevent him from Kaplan] No. [Dr. making a among op rational choice his Why you [Defense are saying Counsel] tions?") added) (emphasis (citing Rum that? Procumier, (5th baugh 395; 753 F.2d
Cir.1985)).
Kaplan] I
[Dr.
believe that he is delu-
sional,
are,
that he is suffer-
In any
even assuming the two
event,
there
ing
illness,
from a severe mental
para-
tests
indistinguishable,
are
the fundamen
schizophrenia
noid
causing
him to
requirement
tal
underlying any notion of
believe
about his situation that
competency
rationality.
things
still must be one of
has affected his
to make appro-
See,
Anderson,
e.g., Matheney v.
377 F.3d
(7th
(Under
Cir.2004)
Dusky,
740,747
priate
decisions regarding his defense
proceed.
and how to
may
defendant
not be tried unless he has
"a rational as
as factual understanding
well
[Defense Counsel] What is this delusion?
him.") (citations
of the proceedings against
Kaplan]
actually
[Dr.
He has
two delu-
omitted);
("'The
Budge,
In this the three mental health professionals testifying [Defense Okay. Counsel] Does Mr. Cor- competency hearing concluded that Cor- coran capacity have the to make a ra- *12 against his defense with abandoning proceed respect to choice with tional In addition to or not. penalty death litigation? is also that, schizophrenia paranoid No. Kaplan] [Dr. logically. ability to think his affecting Why is that? Counsel] [Defense has, he has-he he Again, Kaplan] [Dr. 16-17). Hr'g Tr. at Ct. (Super. paranoid schizo- which psychosis has a him to believe leading that phrenia that know, of the reasons
that, one you Corcoran}, So, is Counsel] [Mr. [Defense doesn't he die is because he wants mentally ill? um, to be pretending disor- speech with to continue want I, I administered No. also Kaplan] [Dr. And have. really doesn't that he der tests malingering, psychological of tests die is be- he wants to reason another they clearly And malingering. of to be to continue want cause he doesn't malingering any not he was showed ma- ultrasound guards' victim of anything, if Again, mental disorder. be- highly bizarre that is And chine. trying to cover that he was they showed likely to be in existence not that is lief tried symptoms and up psychological his either. really he was. look than better 14). Hr'g Tr. (Super. Ct. 28). Tr. at Hr'g
(Super. Ct. suf- Is Mr. Corcoran Counsel] [Defense to the stand also called The defense disorder, disease, a mental fering from Parker, psychia- a forensic George Doctor defect? University School the Indiana trist at very from a suffering He is Kaplan] [Dr. Dr. Parker Kaplan, Like Dr. Medicine. and defect. disease mental severe containing numerous documents examined disease What counsel] [Defense pro- mental health of other the evaluations that? interviews clinical and conducted fessionals schizophrenia. Paranoid Kaplan] [Dr. occasions. separate two on with Corcoran that mental dis- Does Counsel] [Defense that of testimony consistent was His a ration- to make capacity his affect ease Kaplan. Dr. litigation? abandoning this al choice Corcoran] [Mr. Does Counsel] [Defense ques- you repeat Kaplan] Could [Dr. affects his a mental disease tion? choices to rational to make capacity paranoid Does his [Defense Counsell litigation? further abandon make capacity his affect schizophrenia liti- to abandon choice a rational Absolutely. Parker] [Dr.
gation? how? And Counsel] [Defense Kaplan] Yes. [Dr. is schizo- diagnosis Kaplan] His [Dr. being the risk of At Counsel] [Defense that lead symptoms phrenia, how, paranoid does his how repetitive, bearing have a direct diagnosis rational choice? affect his schizophrenia why he believes thought process his schizophrenia paranoid His Kaplan] [Dr. be, says, as he execution would that his reality in his mind creating daily torment relief. The a blessed exist, on the basis doesn't lack of his psychosis, symptoms exist, making he is reality that doesn't conse- the emotional understanding of he wishes whether the decision about quence very decision make that a And, fact, is a little bit skewed. thought process. you irrational deeper go, the ap- more skewed it pears. you And can begin to under- 55-56). Hr'g Tr. at might stand how he feel that execution respect may With to whether Corcoran might preferable to life as he current- normal, appear to be lueid and in control of ly experiences in [sic]. faculties, following exchange is in- *13 structive. 56-57). Hr'g Tr. at Um, so, he [Dr. Parker] does his best to Finally, defense counsel called to the severity symptoms, minimize the of his Haskins, stand Doctor Edmund a clinical to that downplay might he have neuropsychologist. Similar ap- mental disorder. That has a con- been proach doctors, of the other two testifying sistent throughout theme this pro- Dr. Haskins also examined Corcoran's vo- Um, cess.... he has a real desire to medical records and conducted a So, appear bad rather than mad. he interview, clinical which lasted two to three
wants to be-it is him psycho- better for hours, a few weeks before the hearing. logically appear criminally that he is Hasking' Portions Dr. testimony follow. responsible, than to admit that he has may [Defense serious mental illness that Okay. have Does Counsel] Joe-Mr. Corcoran contributed his behavior in the have a past. capacity to make a It speaks to powerful stigma respect how is rational choice with to abandon- illness, against ing his litigation? serious mental that he would rather be executed than admit I [Dr. Haskins] don't believe so. that schizophrenia might be contributing Counsel) why? [Defense And to his desire die. try- [Defense someone Counsel] When is, [Dr. Haskins] The reason that ing appear normal or more normal or decision, order to make a rational one bad, mean, you spend would need to has to adequately hold in mind the avail- more person time with that in order to options able one is considering. You come across these delusions? have to options. consider the You have certainly, [Dr. Well I think Parker] Mr. to make judgments, reasoned weighing did, you if did a brief pros interview options cons of both or him, might able convince some- whatever options happen to be. things actually okay. one pres- He case, Mr. Corcoran's in the context of way. very ents that He is calm. He particular about, um, decision waiv- organized in thought process. his He ing his to post-conviction review, I not stupid. a bright He is man. He psychoses believe that his do permit not things. knows lot of speaks He well him to reason and make a reasoned Um, for himself. just but because he decision in that way. I have to perhaps speaks well organized way an add that in reviewing the results of the understands sort of the nature of what is neuropsychological testing that was on, going the proceedings going that are with, done with Mr. Engum back Dr. against him, doesn't mean that he Engum back in clearly, very he did got an understanding at its foundation well on that testing. His per- logical. you And the more time form on tests of memory, tests of atten- spent him, with you begin more time concentration, tion and even tests of rea- to understand how thought process his soning, was intact at that time. ulti- deserves the and therefore people really the issue Um, not that is but However, are deal- Dr. Parker here. We dealing with mate sanction. we are explained: a reasoned ability to make ing In the case. particular in this psycho- for him [Corcoran] is better [It evalua- neuropsychological aof context criminally that he is logically appear doing um, doing puzzles
tion, when that he has than to admit responsible, of, [sic] nonemotional kinds other may illness serious type um, intellectual tasks, academic past. in the to his behavior contributed He with that. tasks, very well he can do stigma is powerful the speaks It to how good He has man. very bright is a illness, that he against serious mental ability. cognitive that admit rather be executed would schizophre- paranoid Unfortunately, contributing schizophrenia might be *14 however, him from preventing nia, to die. to his desire in this to use put being able 56-57). Obviously, Tr. at Hr'g So, being rather than case. particular intelli- is a man of considerable options all to consider able But expressive powers. gence alternatives, he is choos- all of the weigh might he offers what otherwise fact that most which will that alternative ing only for his explanation a rational considered death, and he own inexorably lead to his intricately related is itself decision to die para- of this on the basis doing that his mental illness. being persecuted that he is delusion noid tormented. opposed I to the exe Although remain ill, mentally seriously see 66-67). cution Each Hr'g Tr. at (Super. Ct. J., (Rucker, Corcoran, testi- professionals health at 502 three mental issue precise not the hearing dissenting), that competency at Corcoran's fying Rather, counsel today. defense us individual before explained pursue opportunity by merely seeks the affected have been processes thought behalf. relief on Corcoran's de- competency illness. Such mental that Coreor- evidence The uncontroverted thorough assess- involve terminations schizophrenic paranoid tak- an is a delusional capabilities, person's of a ment view, support is, my insufficient that mental impact into account ing contemplated competence finding capabilities. has on those illness Rees in either articulated the test de- existence of acknowledge that the that Cor- Thus, I of the view am Dusky. schizo- paranoid diagnosis lusions and right of position in no to waive coran is ra- necessarily preclude do not phrenia this cause and that relief competence. decision-making and tional be remanded should unanimously However, experts all three counsel claims review of the for its to wel- that Corcoran's concluded behalf. makes on Corcoran's is based his own death and hasten come reality and perception his delusional thought whatsoev- in rational has no basis the trial court majority as well as
er. conclu- experts' health the mental
dismiss rep- own of Corcoran's on the basis
sions to die that his decision
resentation four he murdered upon
based fact