{ "id": 3267916, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISE ELLA HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Howard", "decision_date": "1979-07-19", "docket_number": "No. 77-536", "first_page": "138", "last_page": "143", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "74 Ill. App. 3d 138" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "364 N.E.2d 726", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 Ill. App. 3d 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5639276 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/49/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 N.E.2d 392", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 3d 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3404743 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/54/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N.E.2d 231", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ill. 2d 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2701093 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "143-44" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/4/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 N.E.2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "655" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 807", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2727616 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "812" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/43/0807-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 N.E.2d 416", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Ill. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5394638 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/52/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 N.E.2d 873", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "877" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 Ill. App. 3d 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5579855 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/71/0461-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 637, "char_count": 12351, "ocr_confidence": 0.885, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.212561830720872e-07, "percentile": 0.7766836985476759 }, "sha256": "df010fb776b5722d9fa0d3cb1bb50ecd971373e31a1205a43378d51aeb1e3a94", "simhash": "1:b3c294ecf80b84a0", "word_count": 1968 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:44.225302+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISE ELLA HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Louise Ella Howard, was convicted of aggravated battery after a jury trial in Kankakee County. She was sentenced to a prison term of not less than one year or more than three years. On appeal she has alleged that her court-appointed public defender\u2019s failure to adequately investigate her psychiatric history resulted in denying her effective assistance of counsel.\nThe defendant was convicted of aggravated battery for allegedly causing bodily harm while armed with a knife to one Pearl L. Smith by striking her in the back on July 16, 1977. The attack occurred at a Salvation Army store and was unprovoked. The victim testified that she did not previously know the defendant. The defendant merely walked away after the attack and was followed by the victim. After the attack the victim telephoned the police and defendant was arrested about four blocks from the store. At that time she was incoherent and said she did not remember doing anything. Although the victim never saw the weapon used in the attack, a blood stained knife was found in defendant\u2019s purse after her arrest.\nPrior to trial a petition for a competency hearing was filed by the public defender. Pursuant to a defense request a psychiatrist, Dr. V. Janevicius, was appointed to examine the defendant. Two separate competency hearings were conducted. The result of each was a finding that the defendant was competent to stand trial.\nAt the first competency hearing on September 19, 1977, the State presented as its only evidence Dr. Janevicius\u2019 report which was prepared after he had examined the defendant for a day. His report recited that it was based upon his personal examination of the defendant and of her medical records and history. The significant portion of his report, the concluding two paragraphs thereof is reproduced below:\n\u201cIn summary, this is a twenty-six year old woman with very poor background and history of delinquency in early adolescence with two illegitimate child births at the age of 14-15. She apparently never learned or was taught any responsibility or trade and made her living being supported by welfare and manipulating others for her own benefit. It was not unusual that she was picked up on a few occasions and placed in mental institutions where she was never found mentally ill or incompetent and was discharged after short stay.\nIn conclusion, the undersigned finds Ms. Louise Ella Howard free from any disabling mental discorder [sic]. She is basically passive-aggressive person with many sociopathic features and should be held fully responsible for her acts. She may present some difficulties in cooperating with the Court and her counsel but this should be considered as a product of her passive-resistant attitudes rather than mental incompetency.\u201d\nThe defendant was the only witness to testify at this first competency hearing. The relevant portion of her testimony contained her own account of her past psychiatric history. Her testimony was incomplete and confused on the subject of her past psychiatric treatment as compared with an actual detailed summary of her past treatment and stays at various mental health institutions. The trial court, relying upon, Dr. Janevicius\u2019 report, found the defendant competent. Thereafter defendant\u2019s counsel filed a motion to reconsider the defendant\u2019s competency and a second hearing, to reconsider her competency, was held on October 11, 1977. This second hearing concluded with the trial court again determining the defendant was competent to stand trial. At the second hearing the defendant again testified and for the first time mentioned briefly in passing that she had been in Madden Mental Health Zone (referring to J.J. Madden Zone Center).\nThe case proceeded to trial with testimony of the victim and the investigating police officers comprising the State\u2019s case in chief. The defendant was the only witness for the defense. She testified only to the circumstances of her arrest and admitted being at the Salvation Army store where the incident had occurred. The defense \u2022 offered a jury instruction on the defense of insanity which the court refused to give citing as his reason insufficient evidence in the record to raise such a defense.\nAfter her conviction a presentence report was ordered and considered at the sentencing hearing. The presentence report, prepared by a probation officer, contained a discharge summary following the defendant\u2019s commitment to the J.J. Madden Zone Center for a period from February 26, 1974, to March 13, 1974. This hospitalization was the one very vaguely referred to by the defendant in her testimony at the second competency hearing on October 11, 1977. The defendant\u2019s treating physician at the J.J. Madden Zone Center revealed significant facts in his discharge summary of the defendant. This report stated that defendant was initially brought to the Madden Zone Center by the police and was admitted on a physician\u2019s certificate following aggravated assault charges against her resulting from her attempts to stab a woman. The treating doctor\u2019s report further contained the findings, \u201cShe expressed delusions of persecution * * *. Affect was flat, mood appeared depressed. She used much denial. Insight and judgment impaired.\u201d The provisional diagnosis at admission was \u201cSchizophrenia, Paranoid State,\u201d while the final diagnosis at discharge was \u201cPARANOID STATE.\u201d The reasons for defendant\u2019s discharge from the Madden Zone Center were set forth in the discharge summary as follows: \u201cPatient was discharged as per court order, by Judge Genesen. She was released on an I bond, to the custody of her mother, Mrs. Anderson, with several conditions.\u201d Her treating psychiatrist stated in the discharge summary that her prognosis was: \u201cPOOR \u2014 In my opinion this patient is dangerous to others. I do not consent to her discharge and such discharge is against my medical advice. I will not assume any further legal responsibility for this patient.\u201d\nThe issue presented is whether the defendant\u2019s appointed counsel\u2019s failure to investigate and discover the medical records of the defendant\u2019s commitment at the J.J. Madden Zone Center in 1974 and to present them to the trial court amounted to incompetency sufficient to be categorized as ineffective assistance of counsel. In the recent case of People v. Hills (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 461, 467, 389 N.E.2d 873, 877, we recited the standard to be applied in determining the competency of appointed trial counsel, citing People v. Goerger (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 403, 288 N.E.2d 416: \u2018In order to establish lack of competent representation at trial, it is necessary to demonstrate \u201cactual incompetence of counsel, as reflected by the manner of carrying out his duties as a trial attorney\u201d which results in substantial prejudice without which the outcome would probably have been different.\u2019 52 Ill. 2d 403, 409, 288 N.E.2d 416, 419.\u201d Applying this standard to the facts of the case at bar, we determine that the defendant\u2019s appointed counsel did not provide her with effective assistance of counsel. The record manifestly supports the conclusion that the trial court relied very heavily upon the psychiatric report of Dr. Janevicius in both of defendant\u2019s competency hearings. However, the additional data contained in the treating psychiatrist\u2019s report upon the defendant\u2019s discharge from J.J. Madden Zone Center contained evidence in contradiction of the findings and conclusions of Dr. Janevicius, who was not aware of the findings and conclusions of that discharge summary following defendant\u2019s commitment for her attack upon another woman. Had this additional evidence been timely presented to the trial court the outcome of the competency hearings may have been different. More importantly, the defendant\u2019s records were readily discovered by the probation officer at the sentencing hearing in his presentence report. The defendant was to a great extent uncooperative with her defense counsel, but her lack of cooperation should not excuse his failure to fully investigate and discover the defendant\u2019s relevant past psychiatric history, including all her commitments at various institutions. We emphasize that the Madden Zone Center records were found to be readily available to the probation officer and obviously equally available to defendant\u2019s appointed counsel. Defense counsel was present at the second competency hearing on October 11, 1977, when his client in testifying to her past psychiatric history and treatment mentioned her treatment at Madden Zone Center.\nOf equal significance is the failure to introduce sufficient evidence at the trial to warrant the giving of a jury instruction on the defense of insanity. We agree with the trial court that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to raise the defense of insanity. The choice to not offer any evidence of this at the trial was one of trial tactics. Defendant\u2019s brief indicates the defense trial counsel communicated with defendant\u2019s appellate counsel and suggested that his reasons for not offering concrete evidence on the defense of insanity was a matter of trial tactics designed to prevent the defendant from having to admit the charged act. As was recently stated in People v. Lee (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 807, 812, 357 N.E.2d 652, 655 (quoting People v. Heirens (1954), 4 Ill. 2d 131, 143-44, 122 N.E.2d 231, 238), \u201c \u2018Insanity is a defense to be asserted at the trial as any other defense; and the decision not to advise such a defense, even if it were a mistake, does not of itself show that the defendant was inadequately represented.\u2019 \u201d We acknowledge the rule that matters related to trial tactics are not usually sufficient to establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (People v. Griswold (1977), 54 Ill. App. 3d 246, 369 N.E.2d 392; People v. Gary (1977), 49 Ill. App. 3d 704, 364 N.E.2d 726.) However, in the present case we cannot consider defendant\u2019s appointed counsel\u2019s trial tactics to be sound where he failed to fully investigate and therefore lacked a full and complete knowledge of his client\u2019s case. The record demonstrates that appointed trial counsel otherwise ably presented the defense case in the trial on the merits to the extent of his knowledge of the psychiatric background of his client. Had defense counsel been aware of the Madden Zone Center discharge report and its contents, his decision to forego any evidence on the defense of insanity at the trial would likely have been different. The ineffectiveness of counsel which we recognize in this case is defendant\u2019s appointed trial counsel\u2019s failure to discover the Madden Zone Center report, inadvertently or otherwise, and the resultant inability to use it effectively at both the competency hearings and the trial in chief. In any event his lack of use of the Madden Zone Center report at the competency hearing cannot possibly be justified by semantically labeling it as a trial tactic.\nWe believe that the failure of defendant\u2019s appointed trial counsel to discover and use the Madden Zone Center discharge summary of defendant severely prejudiced the outcome of the competency hearings and requires a reversal of the defendant\u2019s conviction. Those same failures of trial counsel to which we have alluded above in deciding this appeal and of which counsel is, by virtue of this opinion, now aware, may result in a different trial strategy for the defense upon remand and could result in a different outcome upon a new trial on the merits. Accordingly we order the defendant\u2019s conviction reversed and remand the case to the Circuit Court of Kankakee County to conduct another hearing to initially determine the defendant\u2019s competency to stand trial, and further direct that if the defendant is found competent, for a new trial to be conducted.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nSTENGEL and ALLOY, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Agostinelli and G. Joseph Weller, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.", "L. Patrick Power, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin, and Rita Kennedy, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISE ELLA HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 77-536\nOpinion filed July 19, 1979.\nRobert Agostinelli and G. Joseph Weller, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nL. Patrick Power, State\u2019s Attorney, of Kankakee (John X. Breslin, and Rita Kennedy, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0138-01", "first_page_order": 160, "last_page_order": 165 }