Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2006 State of Utah v. Wanda Eileen Barzee : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Christine Soltis; Assistant Attorney General; Attorneys for State of Utah. David V. Finlayson; Scott .C Williams; Jennifer K. Gowans; Randall K. Spencer; Fillmore Spencer, LLC; Attorneys for Wanda Eileen Barzee. Christine Soltis (3039) Assistant Attorney General Appeals Division 160 East 300 South 6th Floor P.O. Box 140854 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0854 Attorneys for State of Utah David V. Finlayson (6540) Scott .C Williams (6687) 43 East 400 South Saltlakr Citv.Uta! 1 Jennifer K. Gowans (7538) Randall K. Spencer (6992) Fillmore Spencer, LLC 3301 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84604 Attorneys for Wanda Eileen Barzee Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, Utah v. Barzee, No. 20060627 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2006). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2/6670 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT STATE OF UTAH, Plainti ff/Appellee, Case No. 2«/0b(J6J/-SL vs. 1 , >.'-\ EILEEN i) \! Defendant'Appellant. BRIEF OF APPELLANT INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT'S RULING GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION TO COMPEL MEDICATION, IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, THE HONORABLE JUDITH S. ATHERTON PRESIDING. APPELLANT IS CURRENTLY BEING HELD IN THE FORENSIC UNIT OF THE UTAH STATE HOSPITAL, PROVO. David V. Finlayson (6540) Christine Soltis (3039) Scott C. Williams (6687) Assistant Attorney General 43 East 400 South Appeals Division Saltlakr Citv.Uta! 1 160 East 300 South 6th Floor Jennifer K. Gowans (7538) P.O. Box 140854 Randall K. Spencer (6992) Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0854 Fillmore Spencer, LLC 3301 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84604 Attorneys for State of Utah Attorneys for Wanda Eileen Barzee PUP. J J SHED OPINION REQUESTED FILED UTAH APPELLATE COURTS OCT 2 3 2006 IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/Appellee, CaseNo.20060627-SC vs. WANDA EILEEN BARZEE, Defendant/Appellant. BRIEF OF APPELLANT INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT'S RULING GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION TO COMPEL MEDICATION, IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH, THE HONORABLE JUDITH S. ATHERTON PRESIDING. APPELLANT IS CURRENTLY BEING HELD IN THE FORENSIC UNIT OF THE UTAH STATE HOSPITAL, PROVO. David V. Finlayson (6540) Christine Soltis (3039) Scott C. Williams (6687) Assistant Attorney General 43 East 400 South Appeals Division Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 160 East 300 South 6th Floor Jennifer K. Gowans (7538) P.O. Box 140854 Randall K. Spencer (6992) Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0854 Fillmore Spencer, LLC 3301 North University Avenue Provo, Utah 84604 Attorneys for State of Utah Attorneys for Wanda Eileen Barzee PUBLISHED OPINION REQUESTED TABLE OF CONTENTS JURISDICTION 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 27 ARGUMENT 28 I. THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE SELL FACTORS WERE MET IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT .. 28 II. THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT ADMINISTRATION OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY FURTHER THE STATE'S INTERESTS IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT 29 A. The evidence is clear and convincing that Ms. Barzee is substantially unlikely to be restored to competency via compelled administration of antipsychotic medication 29 B. The court's finding that side effects impairing Ms. Barzee's right to a fair trial are substantially unlikely is clearly erroneous and incorrect 38 III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT OTHER SELL FACTORS SUPPORT COMPELLED MEDICATION 42 A. The evidence is not clear and convincing that an important government interest overrides Ms. Barzee's liberty interest 42 B. The evidence is not clear and convincing that involuntary medication is necessary to further the State's interests, or that i it is medically appropriate 43 IV. FORCED MEDICATION DENIES MS. BARZEE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE UTAH CONSTITUTION .... 45 A. This Court should review Ms. Barzee's state law claim under the Exceptional Circumstances Doctrine 49 CONCLUSION 50 ADDENDA ADDENDUM A: Ruling on Motion to Compel Medication ADDENDUM B: Sellv. United States ADDENDUM C: United States v. Lindauer TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Foote v. Board of Pardons, 808 P.2d 734 (Utah 1991) 45 Julian v. State, 52 P.3d 1168 (Utah 2002) 29 Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst, 138 P.3d 238 (Alaska 2006) 48 People v. Robert S. (In re. Robert S.), 213 111. 2d 30 (111. 2004) 48 Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) 40-41 Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S. Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed. 2d 297 (2003) ... passim State v. Copeland, 765 P.2d 1266 (Utah 1988) 46,47 State v. DePlonty, 749 P.2d 621(Utah 1987) 47 State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5 (Utah App. 1996) 49 State v. Kirkam, 319 P.2d 859 (Utah 1958) 47 State v. Levin, 2006 UT 50 2-3 State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29 49 State v. Orr, 127 P.3d 1213 (Utah 2005) 45 State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991) 45 Tillman v. State, 128 P.3d 1123 (Utah 2005) 3 United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d227 (4th Cir. 2005) 2, 30 United States v. Ghane, 392 F.3d 317 (9th Cir. 2004) 16,25 United States v. Gomes, 387 F.3d 157 (2nd Cir. 2004) 2 iii United States v. Lindauer, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62872 (US Dist. Ct. So. Dist. NY) 34-5 Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) 47 Constitutional Provisions UTAH CONSTITUTION, article I, section 7 45-6, 48-9 Utah Code Annotated UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-2-305 46 UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-15-16 5,50 UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-2-2(3)(h) 1 Other Sources Compiled Laws of 1876, Title I, Chapter 1852, Section 22 46 Compiled Laws of Utah, §4387 (1888) 46 Laws of Utah, 1876, Ch. XI Sec. 193 46 McKell, unpublished Master's thesis, History of the Utah State Hospital, University of Utah Archives 46 Message of Governors 1850-1876, Bound Volume, Utah Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah 46 iv Revised Statutes of the State of Utah (1898) 46 WEBSTERS NEW WORLD DICTIONARY, 2d Ed. (1980) 29 V IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff/Appellee, CaseNo.20060627-SC vs. WANDA EILEEN BARZEE, Defendant/Appellant. BRIEF OF APPELLANT JURISDICTION Appellant, WANDA EILEEN BARZEE ("Ms. Barzee"), appeals the trial court's June 21, 2006 Ruling on Motion to Compel Medication. R530-568 (Addendum A). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §78-2-2(3)(h), as this is an interlocutory appeal involving first degree felony charges. STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ISSUE 1: Did the trial court err in granting the State's motion to compel medication? STANDARD OF REVIEW: This is a question of first impression in Utah. The parties stipulated below that the State had to prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the State has an important interest in restoring Ms. Barzee to competency; (2) involuntary medication will significantly further the State's interest such that it will have (a) a substantial likelihood of rendering Ms. Barzee competent, and; (b) a substantial unlikelihood of causing side effects that will significantly interfere with Ms. Barzee's ability to assist counsel in her defense; (3) involuntary medication is necessary to further the State's interest; and (4) medication is medically appropriate for Ms. Barzee. Sell v. United States1 (Addendum B); R579:6. Some federal courts considering this issue have determined that "[wjhether the Government's asserted interest is important is a legal question that is subject to de novo review.... [and the trial court's] findings with respect to the other Sell factors are factual in nature and are therefore subject to review for clear error." United States v. Gomes, 387 F.3d 157 (2nd Cir. 2004); accord, United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2005). Because this is a matter of first impression, the appropriate standard of review of the mixed questions of law and fact involved has not been formally established in Utah. However, this Court's recent decision in State v. Levin, 2006 UT 50, weighs in favor of a correctness standard, wherein no deference should be given to the trial court's decision.2 ]539 U.S. 166, 123 S. Ct 2174, 156 L. Ed. 2d 297 (2003). 2This case involves fundamental liberty interests expressly recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Sell, and "mixed questions where uniform application" is thus "of high importance" as is "establishing consistent statewide standards". State v. Levin, 2006 UT 50, f23. Facts relevant to the underlying inquiry, even if complex, will be "reflected in a cold record." Id. at ^40. Even if the facts relevant under the Sell analysis may or may not be complex or disputed or significantly impacted by witness credibility, the need for uniformity on the question of forced medication and the fundamental liberty interests involved weighs against a deferential standard of review.