[ back ]
Can a Severely Retarded Person be Constitutionally Convicted of
Thirty seven-year-old Ronald Beaudoin touched the vulva of an eight-year-old child - once under her clothes and a second time outside her clothes. He was mentally retarded with an IQ of 66 (first percentile of population) and suffered from developmental disabilities. He had the cognitive facilities of a young child, being able to function at the level of a 4 year-old on some things, and an 11 year-old on others. After a jury trial, he was convicted of two counts of lascivious conduct and was sentenced to twenty five years to life, suspended after seven years.
Ronald appealed asserting, principally, that the trial court was wrong to find him competent to stand trial. The three male justices, Chief Justice Reiber, Justice Dooley and Justice Burgess upheld the conviction. The two female justices, Johnson and Skoglund dissented.
A person who is incompetent to understand the reasons for the proceedings against him, and the factual basis for them or to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding is deprived of due process of law. The majority noted Ronald gave the police a detailed factual account of the events, denied wrongdoing and declined to speak further without a lawyer. Competence was also supported by Dr. Weker, a psychiatrist who had done over 1000 examinations, and gave detailed reasons for his opinion. Dr. Weker reported Ronald knew the relative severity of the charges, and appeared to understand plea bargaining and the role of defense attorney and prosecutor.
The dissenters relied on the opinion of Dr. Patricia Stone, a clinical psychologist who administered several psychological tests, which Dr. Weker had not used. Dr. Stone testified the tests confirmed Ronald’s limited mental functioning. The dissent quoted a lengthy interchange between Ronald and the trial judge where Ronald described the charges against him as “not serious,” didn’t know what a jury trial was, thought a guilty plea occurred whether a person was guilty or not, and didn’t remember what happened. They also referred to numerous times when defense counsel asked to interrupt the trial because she felt Ronald didn’t understand.
Both the majority and dissenting judges made a thorough review of the record and came to different conclusions. Is it just to have a person in prison for seven years to life if he doesn’t know why he is there? Or, is it more important that girls and women are protected from sexual abuse? Does the answer depend on the gender of the judges? Apparently not. Adherence to the constitution is a subtle and difficult task.
State of Vermont vs. Ronald Beaudoin 2008 VT 133.
[ back ]
