If/when Andrea Yates is charged with the murders of the other two children, and she is found to have been insane, how would they combine her two different “sentences” - life in prison and life in a mental institution?
Very interesting! My thought is that this conviction would take precedence, but it sure would stir things up, wouldn’t it?
She’s not going to be charged. Or are you asking hypothetically?
If they have indeed stated they are not trying her, then yes, hypothetically.
Well, actually, friddae, I just heard on the news this morning that the Harris County DA stated “the door is still open on trying the other charges”.
So I stand corrected.
But I still don’t know the answer to your question.
IANAL so I wonder if she would then be declared incmpetent to stand trial again?
Someone correct me if I’m wrong. but I think the “sentence” for not guilty by reason of insanity is confinement in a mental hospital until no longer dangerous, not for life.That said, I would think (judging by how such things work here) that she would do her prison sentence (possibly all or part in a prison psychiatric hospital), and would be confined in a psychiatric hospital after her release from prison if she still meets the criteria.
Doreen
If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the following is supposed to happen:
I would imagine that Yates would be assessed as the procedure required, but regardless of what was determined and the success of any course of treatment, that Yates would still have to sit out the capital murder life sentence. So, I think it would still be 40 years before she had the chance of seeing the outside world.
The general standard for being incompetent to stand trial is a finding that you’re unable to understand the charges against you, the purpose of a judge, jury, lawyers, or witnesses, or unable to meaningfully assist in your defense.
That is not the same as legal insanity. And since Ms. Yates was not not insane in her first go-rouind, that proceeding has no real value in showing her to be incompetent to stand trial again in any event.
- Rick
Bricker, I’ve got two follow-up questions about the Yates trial that have been puzzling me.
First, this idea of holding off on charging her for two of the deaths, presumably to see how the first trial went. I’m bothered by that one, since it seems to be an attempt to get around double jeopardy - the state is not supposed to be able to try someone, learn the weaknesses of the case, and then try the person again if need be.
I know that technically the other two are separate victims and coudl be separate charges, but given that the facts are so closely inter-related, it seems to me like a wiggle around double jeopardy.
If I were defence counsel in our system and the Crown did this, I would challenge it on a combination of pre-charge delay and breach of principles of fundamental justice, because of the effect on double jeopardy.
Second, during the sentencing submissions yesterday, I was surprised to see that the prosecution had the names and pictures of all five of the children up on the board that they were referring to during their address to the jury. Since the state only charged her with three of the deaths in the trial that just ended, how could the prosecution refer to the other two deaths? In our system, the Crown cannot refer to other bad acts of the accused that are not before the Court, except in certain rare circumstances. How is the prosecution able to refer to deaths that are not in the charge, to bolster the sentence for the deaths that are the subject of the trial? Again, this smells to me like an attempt to avoid double jeopardy.
Any thoughts you might have would be welcome.
According to today’s Boston Globe, Andrea Yates was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. She’ll be eligible for parole when she’s in her 70s.
She was found competent to stand trial – ergo, the insanity defense was moot.
I don’t remember if anything was mentioned about her being sentenced to a state psychtriatic hospital…although IMHO I think that would be a better choice for her rather than an actual prison…
Thanks everyone for your ideas!
My personal opinion is that if she had pulled a Susan Smith and drowned all five of her kids at the same time, I would agree that separating the charges would violate double jeopardy. However, since she did them one after the other, there was always a point where she could have stopped the sequence of events, so they are more like separate crimes.
kiz, as I hinted above, the standard for “insane” is quite different than the standard for “not competent to stand trial.” A person may be competent to stand trial, but not guilty by reason of insanity for the crimes tried – or the accused may never come to trial, because, even though legally sane for the purposes of punishment for the crime, they are incompetent to stand trial. So the confident ‘ergo’ in your post above is misplaced.
Northern Piper, as was suggested both here, and more extensively in another thread, each of the five deaths constituted a separate crime for double jeopardy purposes. They were committed one after another, with opportunity each time for Ms. Yates to stop and reflect anew on what she was doing. The state is certainly free to try some or all of them together, or to hold off on charging one or more of it pleases. The heart of double jeopardy protections is protection against multiple prosecutions for the same crime; as there are five crimes here, it simply does not apply.
However, as you correctly point out, the prosecution got “mileage” from the uncharged crimes by mentioning them in its case-in-chief, and at sentencing.
Admission of evidence of uncharged or prior bad acts against an accused is generally prohibited. Such acts (often called 404b acts, after the model evidence code section that refers to their admission) are inadmissible in general because they invite the fact-finder to make impermissible inferences - that because the accused is a bad person, or because they did the uncharged acts, they are also likely to have done the charged acts.
However, there are several exceptions. Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to show a common plan, scheme, or motive, or to show absence of mistake. In this case, prosecutors were able to discuss the uncharged killings as part of the overall plan.
All that said, it does seem fundamentally unfair that the prosecution gets what feels like multiple bites of the apple. But there really were five “apples” here, at least from an evidentiary and double jeopardy sense.
- Rick
Well, okay, if you say so.
But aren’t the answers to the two questions contradictory? Each killing is separate, so the state is free to charge (and try) each one separately. But, at each trial the state can bring in evidence of all five killings, because they’re all part of a common plan, scheme or motive?
Shouldn’t the state at least have to choose? If they want to try each one separately, then they can’t bring in evidence of all five, but if they want to argue common scheme, then they charge (and try) them all at once?
I see what you mean, Bricker. My line of thought automatically put two and two together, as in: “Well, if she’s found insane, then she’s incompetent to stand trial”, not to mention the other way around.
Given her mental illness, I would’ve thought the possibility of her being declared insane/incompetent would’ve played a bigger role during the trial. Well, obviously I was wrong…:shrug:
The rules that Bricker mentions apply to the guilt/innocence phase of the trial. They don’t apply to the punishmnet stage. In punishment, the State can introduce evidence of prior bad acts of a defendant. The limit is that the judge must charge the jury to only consider the prior bad acts in punishment if they first find those acts proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At punishment, the State is allowed to try to increase punishment with reference to acts that weren’t the subject matter of the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.
So you’re being sentenced for something you’re not charged with, nor convicted of?
Not quite. In the sentencing phase, both prosecution and defense have the right to enter evidence. The defense will enter ‘mitigating’ evidence (reasons why the defendant’s crime should be seen in a less harsh light) and the prosecution, for ‘enhancing’ evidence (reasons to see it more harshly).
So the prosecution would emphasize the vlunerability of the victim, while the defense may introduce elements of mental illness etc.
The reason that prior bad acts can come in here, is that they may in fact be enhancing or mitigating factors.
as far as the ‘proof’ standard, in this case, both sides acknowledged (even before the trial started) that she had, in fact, drowned all five children.
What wring said, and a bit more. The way I think about this is that the guilt/innocence phase is centered on the crime (more specifically, the events alleged in the indictment) and the punishment phase is centered on the defendant. It’s in punishment where the State has the opportunity to show the criminal history of a defendant.
In that sense, it is possible that a defendant can receive a sentence influenced by actions he has not been charged with. I think that what I add next will continue to offend your sensibilities. The evidence presented at punishment of other crimes does not preclude later prosecution of that crime. For example, a guy was indicted for a felony-level theft. When two police officers tried to arrest him on his warrant for the felony, he tried to fight his way to escape. In the process he kicked one of the officers in the head. This led to an indictment for assaulting a public servant. His second indictment carried a more severe penalty than his first indictment. The plan was to try his assault case first, then present evidence to prove his theft indictment in punishment. Although evidence of two crimes would have been presented at one trial, jeopardy would only attach to the assault indictment, and he could still be tried on the theft conviction.
(Sorry, the tenses get strange because this is a real example, and the defendant was found not guilty of the assault.)
In my state, it is also how you increase punishment for repeat offenders. Prior felony convictions can be used to increase the minimum punishment for a subsequent felony. In the indictment, the first paragraph will contain the current allegation of a crime. A second and third “enhancement” paragraph can be added to the indictment alleging a previous felony conviction. At trial, the jury will only hear of the first paragraph during guilt/innocence, but will hear enhancement paragraphs during punishment.
Mostly, what you should take from this is that punishment evidence in Texas is pretty much a free-for-all.
You’re right, Robb, it does offend my sensibilities. In fact, that was going to be my next question! I’ve got no problem with introducing prior convictions at sentence, because in that case the accused has been tried and convicted for those crimes. It’s fair to consider failure to reform as an aggravating factor in a subsequent sentence.
But, I still don’t see how it’s fair to be able to use the prior bad acts without a previous conviction. 
Oh well, go figure - it’s Texas. :eek: