 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pruitt v. State9/13/2005
cord.
4. The Standard for Adaptive Behavior
Indiana Code section 35-36-9-2 requires a defendant claiming to be mentally retarded to demonstrate "substantial impairment of adaptive behavior." Pruitt argues that this Indiana statutory standard for assessing adaptive behavior is unconstitutional after Atkins. He contends that Atkins requires all states to use a standard definition of mental retardation and cites the clinical definitions provided by the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) and the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. 1997) (DSM-IV). Pruitt points out that in Atkins, the Court described the clinical definitions of mental retardation by the AAMR and the DSM-IV and explained that "the statutory definitions of mental retardation are not identical, but generally conform to the clinical definitions." Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317 n.22. Pruitt argues therefore that these definitions provide the appropriate standard. AAMR currently defines mental retardation as "a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills." Am. Ass'n on Mental Retardation, Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports 8 (10th ed. 2002). The DSM-IV is slightly different, explaining, "the essential feature of mental retardation is significantly subaverage intellectual functioning that is accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the following skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety." DSM-IV at 39.
Although it found a "national consensus" against executing the mentally retarded, Atkins explained:
To the extent there is serious disagreement about the execution of mentally retarded offenders, it is in determining which offenders are in fact retarded. . . . Not all people who claim to be mentally retarded will be so impaired as to fall within the range of mentally retarded offenders about whom there is a national consensus. As was our approach in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), with regard to insanity, "we leave to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon their execution of sentences.'"
536 U.S. at 317. The state argues that this language from Atkins allows states to define mental retardation for themselves. Most courts that have faced challenges that a defendant is mentally retarded and therefore not subject to execution have agreed. See, e.g., In re Johnson, 334 F.3d 403, 404 (5th Cir. 2003); Bell v. Cockrell, 310 F.3d 330, 332 (5th Cir. 2002) (Atkins did not conclusively define mental retardation); Gray v. State, 887 So. 2d 158, 168 (Miss. 2004) ("Determining who is mentally retarded for purposes of this prohibition has been left to the individual States."); Johnson v. State, 102 S.W.3d 535, 540 (Mo. 2003) ("Atkins did not define the perimeters of mental retardation, but left 'to the States the task of'" enforcing the restriction); Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450, 457 (Tenn. 2004). We agree that Atkins did not provide for a uniform definition of mental retardation, but note that Atkins cited with approval the clinical definitions of mental retardation, explaining that while state statutory prohibitions against executing the mentally retarded are not uniform, all, including Indiana's, "generally conform" to the clinical definitions. Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317 n.22.
Although Atkins did not specifically defin
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|