State of Maine v. Smith

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedMay 1, 2017
DocketKENcr-14-449
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Smith (State of Maine v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Smith, (Me. Super. Ct. 2017).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss CR-14-449

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL

LEROY SMITH III

Background

Leroy Smith III stands accused of intentionally or knowingly, or with depraved

indifference, causing the death of his father in Gardiner, Maine on May 3, 2014. Mr.

Smith has been represented throughout these proceedings by Attorneys Pam Ames and

Scott Hess, and the State is represented by Assistant Attorney General Don Macomber.

The issue of Mr. Smith's competence to stand trial has been pending since shortly after

his arrest on this charge, May 5, 2014. This matter was originally assigned to Justice

Donald Marden but was reassigned to the undersigned Justice on December 15, 2016.

Justice Marden has issued multiple orders in this case. In May of 2014, Justice

Marden ordered that Mr. Smith be evaluated for competence. After Dr. Ann LeBlanc,

head of the State Forensic service, found on May 13, 2014 that Mr. Smith lacked the

skills required for competence, Justice Marden on June 23, 2014 ordered that he be

transferred to Riverview Psychiatric Facility for treatment and evaluation where he has

1 remained since that date. Dr. Robert Riley on August 15, 2014 conducted a

neuropsychological evaluation of Mr. Smith and concluded that Mr. Smith functioned in

the high average range of overall intellectual ability, and that he showed no signs of head

trauma or other cognitive impairments. Dr. Leblanc evaluated him again in October of

2014 and concluded that as of that date Mr. Smith was still floridly delusional. She saw

him again in December of 2014 and found his condition unchanged.

Justice Marden on January 5, 2015 issued an order finding Mr. Smith incompetent

to stand trial and ordered that he remain at Riverview for restoration of competence, and

ordered periodic evaluations of Mr. Smith pursuant to 15 M.R.S. §101-D. Pursuant to that

order, Dr. Leblanc evaluated him again and opined in her March 5, 2015 report that Mr.

Smith remained incompetent. She stated, however, that competence might be restored if

he received medication. Mr. Smith, however, refused to take medication as prescribed by

Riverview staff and also refused to be evaluated by Dr. Peter Donnelly.

In June of2015 the State filed a motion pursuant to 15 M.R.S. §106(3) for the

Court to order that Mr. Smith be involuntarily medicated in order to restore competence.

In August of 2015, Dr. Donnelly issued a report that agreed with Dr. Leblanc that

medication therapy was likely to improve Mr. Smith's condition. On December 2, 2015

Justice Marden conducted a testimonial hearing on the State's motion for involuntary

medication. On January 4, 2016 Justice Marden granted the motion, and additionally

ordered that the State Forensic Service conduct monthly evaluations and issue reports on

Mr. Smith's condition, as well as ordering Riverview to provide updates on Mr. Smith's

condition.

2 Findings and Conclusions

The Court has reviewed all of the prior orders issued by Justice Marden, the

available transcripts of hearings, as well as all of the evaluations including the monthly

and weekly updates provided by the State Forensic Service and Riverview. 1 In addition,

after taking this case over from Justice Marden, the Court conducted testimonial hearings

on January 20, 2017 and February 14, 2017. The Defense was asking the Court to find

that Mr. Smith was still not competent to stand trial, and to dismiss the charges against

him. The State was asking that the Court find that competence had been restored, and for

an order extending Justice Marden's order for involuntary medication. At the January 20,

2017 hearing Dr. Leblanc testified along with Dr. Donnelly, Dr. Douglas, and Miriam

Davidson who is a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner. The Defendant's examiner, Dr.

Carlysle Voss was not available on that date but he testified on February 14, 2017.

Dr. LeBlanc testified that Mr. Smith's condition had significantly improved since

Riverview began medication therapy pursuant to Justice Marden's orders. In addition, she

noted that his understanding of the legal system and process had always been "excellent."

According to Dr. Leblanc, Mr. Smith has a clear understanding of the role of legal actors,

including what it means to plead not criminally responsible and what an indeterminate

commitment would mean to his liberty. Remarkably, he also understood what it meant to

have a bifurcated trial after entry of a plea of not criminally responsible. She testified that

1 The Court has not reviewed the most recent report filed by Dr. Douglass on or about April 3, 2017 but ordered that it be sent to counse I of record. The Court did not think it should consider the report, as the record on the competence hearing has been closed by agreement of the parties. Justice Marden's order contemplates further evaluations and this order will address that issue and modify that order.

3 he seemed reluctant to enter an NCR plea in part because of the experience of another

patient.

As of the date of that hearing, Dr. Leblanc testified that he was still not willing to

meet with his attorneys -- which had obviously been a source of some frustration and

concern on their part. However, Dr. Leblanc testified that Mr. Smith had recently begun

to be able "step back" when talking to examiners about the case and his otherwise

steadfast delusions about why he killed his father. What was new, she said, was his

ability to speak about his case and his attorneys separate from the delusions he still

maintained. She said he remained "unrealistic" about what his attorneys could do to

investigate his claims, and that he did not trust them. At the same time, she said he was

able to see his attorneys as essential to his case. What she described was not a situation

where he was unable to communicate with them but more a situation of his not being

willing to communicate with them. Nevertheless she described his motivation to

cooperate and get through the process as "very high." He wanted, she stated, to be found

competent, to proceed to trial, and he wanted his beliefs heard about why he felt he had to

kill his father. She said he also understood he risked conviction if his explanation or

defense was not believed by a jury or judge. In response to questions from the Court

about persons who suffer from a delusional disorders, and whether they can ever be

competent if they continue to hold delusions about their motivations to engage in certain

criminal conduct, she stated that it was possible for a person with a delusional disorder to

be competent to stand trial. The goal would be to have the patient motivated to look at the

consequences of certain decisions and figure out what is in their best interest. In Mr.

Smith's case, she indicated that he made it very clear that he understood that if his

4 defense or defenses were rejected by the trier of fact, he would want to then ask that he

be found not criminally responsible.

Dr. Donnelly testified that Mr. Smith has always possessed an "excellent

understanding" of the legal process, the consequences of certain decisions he might

make, and that he has "always understood the players." The issue, he stated, has always

been his ability to assist in his defense. Dr. Donnelly also noted areas of improvement in

Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Vane
322 A.2d 58 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1974)
Thursby v. State
223 A.2d 61 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1966)
State of Maine v. Roxanne Jeskey
2016 ME 134 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-smith-mesuperct-2017.