Phenis v. United States
909 A.2d 138 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When evidence suggests a substantial question of a defendant's sanity at the time of the offense, the trial court must conduct a `Frendak` inquiry to ensure the defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived the insanity defense. This duty exists even if a single, conclusory report finds the defendant criminally responsible, especially when there is significant countervailing evidence of mental illness.
Facts:
- Jamar Phenis lived in an apartment with his mother, Ardis Phenis, and his six-year-old niece, Nigeri Cooper.
- On June 27, 2000, Phenis was arguing with his mother about money and his girlfriend while maintenance workers were present.
- During the argument, Phenis kicked a living room table across the room and shook a window, stating, "this one is going next."
- Shortly thereafter, witnesses saw Phenis on the apartment balcony holding a large recliner chair that was on fire, which he then threw off the balcony to the sidewalk below.
- His niece, Nigeri, ran out of the building crying, stating that her uncle had "gone crazy" and had "set the place on fire."
- Phenis then walked out of the building at a slow pace without calling for help or reporting the fire.
- After being arrested, Phenis admitted to an investigator that he started the fire, stating, "Well, I guess I did it.... I struck a couple of matches... I threw [the second match] on the couch."
- Phenis also told the investigator, "But when I get the power I am going to do it right."
Procedural Posture:
- Jamar Phenis was charged with arson, malicious destruction of property, and cruelty to children in the D.C. Superior Court (the trial court).
- Following presentment, the court ordered a competency screening, which resulted in a finding that Phenis was incompetent to stand trial.
- Phenis was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital, where he was treated with medication and subsequently found competent to stand trial.
- Defense counsel requested and received a court order for a 'Criminal Responsibility Test' to evaluate Phenis's mental state at the time of the offense.
- Both the defense and the government later filed motions indicating that a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity might be an appropriate disposition.
- A productivity report was issued, concluding Phenis was criminally responsible for the offenses, which the trial court accepted over defense counsel's objections.
- Phenis's attempt to enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge failed during the colloquy when he denied having the requisite malicious intent.
- The case proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted Phenis on all counts.
- Phenis appealed his convictions to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a `Frendak` inquiry.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to conduct a `Frendak` inquiry to determine if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the insanity defense, where there was substantial evidence of his mental illness at the time of the offense, despite a conclusory report finding him criminally responsible?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruiz, J.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a `Frendak` inquiry. A `Frendak` inquiry is required whenever evidence suggests a substantial question of the defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense. In this case, there were numerous indicators of mental illness, including Phenis's history of hospitalization, his bizarre behavior at the time of the offense, two separate findings of incompetence to stand trial, his dependency on antipsychotic medication to maintain competency, and express concerns raised by both the prosecution and defense about a potential insanity defense. The single productivity report concluding he was criminally responsible was insufficient to negate the need for an inquiry because it was conclusory, challenged by the defense, and contained an internal inconsistency by diagnosing Phenis with "PCP-induced psychosis" while simultaneously finding he did not suffer from a "mental disease or defect." Given the substantial evidence raising questions about Phenis's sanity, the court had an independent obligation to ensure he knowingly and intelligently waived the insanity defense.
Concurring - Glickman, J.
Yes. While joining the majority opinion, this concurrence expresses serious misgivings about the `Frendak` framework itself, which was inherited from an overruled case, `Whalem v. United States`. The concurrence questions the assumption that the trial judge is the proper party to decide whether to impose an insanity defense on behalf of a defendant who lacks the capacity to waive it. A judge's loyalties are not to the defendant, and other alternatives, such as appointing a guardian to make the choice for the defendant, were not considered in `Frendak`. The issue is flagged for reconsideration in a future case where it is properly raised.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for triggering a trial court's duty to conduct a `Frendak` inquiry. It establishes that a single, conclusory expert report on criminal responsibility cannot override substantial countervailing evidence of mental illness. The ruling reinforces the court's independent duty to safeguard a defendant's right to make a knowing choice about the insanity defense, preventing the issue from being dismissed based on a single, challenged piece of expert evidence. This precedent will require trial judges to more actively engage with evidence of a defendant's mental state and not defer to conclusory reports, particularly when a defendant's competency and sanity have been persistent issues throughout the proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for Phenis v. United States