GUILTY MA - Abigail Hanna for kidnap, assault of 2yo girl, Hamilton, 2015

[cattlekate]

I sincerely appreciate the insight being offered by posters knowledgable in mental illnesses vs personality disorders vs comorbid attributes. This is so sad!

 

[abr]

I thought that they were mother and daughter when I first saw them.

 

[AnaTeresa]

The psychologist only saw Abi for an hour, and for most of that time Abi refused to speak. You can't determine if someone is genuinely psychotic or just malingering in so short a time.

That's about the amount of time most competency evaluations take. There's also outside that time a review of the defendant's medical records, and sometimes a family history if the family is cooperative, but the interview between the defendant and the forensic psych is usually an hour, in my experience. :twocents:

ETA: Interviews if the defendant is taking the not guilty by reason of insanity route at trial are usually much more extensive.

 

[Rayemonde]

From the search warrant affidavit, it seems there was a marked contrast between her behaviour before her arrest and afterwards. Before she was driving around, talking to the police, making sense (although she was described as emotionally erratic - crying then stopping). Whereas when she she saw the psychiatrist she was sitting in the floor and refusing to speak, and in court she could apparently barely stand up. What a jury will need to know is whether she was psychotic and unable to know right from wrong at the time of the crime, not before or afterwards.

I still wonder how she came to be arrested at the ER. Did she have some kind of meltdown when the police found the toddler clothes, so the police or her parents took her to ER before arresting her? And then after she was arrested, did she go to jail, or straight to a psychiatric hospital?

Can you even arrest someone who is psychotic and unable to understand their Miranda rights?

 

[Rayemonde]

Another thing from the affidavit - Abi told the officers she had lied about where she was because she had been smoking pot and didn't want to get into trouble (but they said she showed no signs of being under the influence of pot). And she said she lied about forgetting the password for her iPhone because the code was 0420 and 420 is the code for marijuana consumption. So is Abi a drug user? Even pot can worsen or even trigger psychosis in susceptible individuals.

 

[krig101]

Another thing from the affidavit - Abi told the officers she had lied about where she was because she had been smoking pot and didn't want to get into trouble (but they said she showed no signs of being under the influence of pot). And she said she lied about forgetting the password for her iPhone because the code was 0420 and 420 is the code for marijuana consumption. So is Abi a drug user? Even pot can worsen or even trigger psychosis in susceptible individuals.

Agree. I've seen that first hand with a close relative. I've even seen prescription meds do that. Pretty scary.

Also wondering if she was thinking it would have been a lesser of two evils to say she was smoking pot rather than to say she kidnapped a child.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Rayemonde]

Yes, I thought it was quite crafty to claim she lied because she'd been smiling pot and didn't want to get into trouble. A clever, plausible lie to cover up her other lie.

Also from the search warrant, LE were looking for knives and bloodstains, amongst other things. So had the baby been cut?

 

[AnaTeresa]

From the search warrant affidavit, it seems there was a marked contrast between her behaviour before her arrest and afterwards. Before she was driving around, talking to the police, making sense (although she was described as emotionally erratic - crying then stopping). Whereas when she she saw the psychiatrist she was sitting in the floor and refusing to speak, and in court she could apparently barely stand up. What a jury will need to know is whether she was psychotic and unable to know right from wrong at the time of the crime, not before or afterwards.

I still wonder how she came to be arrested at the ER. Did she have some kind of meltdown when the police found the toddler clothes, so the police or her parents took her to ER before arresting her? And then after she was arrested, did she go to jail, or straight to a psychiatric hospital?

Can you even arrest someone who is psychotic and unable to understand their Miranda rights?

You're mixing up competency and insanity. A competency evaluation is what most recently occurred. This determines whether she's competent right now. The main focus is on whether she can assist in her defense, perceive what's going on around her, participate, etc. If someone isn't competent, there is usually a court order to medicate if possible, in an attempt to restore a person to competency. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/so-sue-me/201411/the-difference-between-competency-and-sanity

Insanity, on the other hand, is evaluated when a case is going to trial and a defendant intends to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. This focuses on whether or not the defendant was "insane" at the time of of the offense. Many states use a test which states that the defendant - at the time of the offense - must not understand right from wrong, or does not understand the quality of his actions (this is the M'Naughten test). Massachusetts, however, uses the Model Penal Code definition for the insanity defense, which states “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” Although this sounds similar to the M'Naughten test, there is a difference. Here is a good link from a defense attorney in Massachusetts who explains how it works in their state. http://www.bradbaileylaw.com/practice-areas/affirmative-defense/insanity-defenses/

A person who is not competent can be arrested - but in many states, the case law provides they cannot waive their Miranda rights. So an arrest is permissible, but questioning by law enforcement may not. However, statements made before an arrest are certainly admissible. Here is a primer on how Miranda can and cannot be waived. http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/PoliceInterrogation/WaivingFifthAmend.asp

Likely, when she was arrested, she went straight to jail as she would have had to have her arraignment shortly thereafter. She's likely under a suicide watch at the jail, and may be transferred to some sort of psychiatric hospital, if the jail has such a program set up. Otherwise, she may be held alone in the jail and closely monitored. :twocents:

 

[Rayemonde]

I'm not getting them confused, I'm just getting ahead of myself and assuming that there will be an insanity plea when this goes to court.

 

[tlcya]

This reminds me of the case in ?Philadelphia (not sure of place), where a young, single woman kidnapped a child that attended the day care that she worked at. She abused the child and then let her go. The child was found partially naked, but alive, on a playground. It was discussed over and over how there must have been a second person, but no one else was ever charged. I believe that woman pled guilty and is still in prison. No reason/motive was ever disclosed.
I guess it seems similar because: young single woman, kidnapping a child known to them, eventually letting the child go and the women acting alone. Just so strange.

I remember following that one. The perp was named Christina Regusters. the WS threads are here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/tags.php?tag=christina+regusters

A very disturbed young woman and that poor baby went through H E double toothpicks.

 

[ILOKAL]

I do wonder if not having been Mirandized (at her home) will be a part of the defense. Will the defense argue that Abigail was in a custodial situation based on the fact that the location in which the questioning took place was secure? Some parts of the affidavit (as written by the officers present) simply don't ring true, IMO and seem to have been written in such a manner as to get around a Miranda warning, especially since LE immediately had knowledge that Lyndon had been found.

Of course, and unfortunately, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that would have happened.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I do wonder if not having been Mirandized (at her home) will be a part of the defense. Will the defense argue that Abigail was in a custodial situation based on the fact that the location in which the questioning took place was secure? Some parts of the affidavit (as written by the officers present) simply don't ring true, IMO and seem to have been written in such a manner as to get around a Miranda warning, especially since LE immediately had knowledge that Lyndon had been found.

Of course, and unfortunately, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that would have happened.

If they are good defense attorneys, they should make that argument. Your focus on the place being secure is definitely something they would bring up - whether or not the defendant felt able to leave, and whether a reasonable person would feel able to leave is often a lynch pin to these types of arguments. I think it's likely that if this case proceeds on a trial track, there will be a motion hearing to suppress her statements. :twocents:

Here's a primer on suppressing statements from a public defender in North Carolina. Some of the case law and nuances may differ slightly from Massachusetts, but the underlying principles are the same. http://www.ncids.org/Defender Training/2011NewFelonyDefender/SuppressionMotions.pdf

 

[bluesneakers]

From the search warrant affidavit, it seems there was a marked contrast between her behaviour before her arrest and afterwards. Before she was driving around, talking to the police, making sense (although she was described as emotionally erratic - crying then stopping). Whereas when she she saw the psychiatrist she was sitting in the floor and refusing to speak, and in court she could apparently barely stand up. What a jury will need to know is whether she was psychotic and unable to know right from wrong at the time of the crime, not before or afterwards.

I still wonder how she came to be arrested at the ER. Did she have some kind of meltdown when the police found the toddler clothes, so the police or her parents took her to ER before arresting her? And then after she was arrested, did she go to jail, or straight to a psychiatric hospital?

Can you even arrest someone who is psychotic and unable to understand their Miranda rights?

I looked everywhere trying to figure this out and couldn't find anything because I kept getting sidetracked by when the police can have you committed. Maybe it's like with a sick person and they arrest you and have you treated while you're incarcerated? Plenty of inpatients are considered dangerous to themselves or others so I don't see how they could use that reasoning to justify. But people with mental illnesses can break the law like anyone else so there must be a system in place.

My only experience with this is personal. A friend had an arrest warrant but was also depressed and was experiencing suicidal ideation (long story). He checked himself in and eventually the police figured out where he was (do they routinely check hospitals?) and arrested him. It had been more than 72 hours, and he wasn't psychotic though.

Are there any medical considerations when they arrest someone? If they have a warrant doesn't that trump everything?

eta: Should have read ahead. When will I learn?

 

[cvaldez1975]

I guess I just don't even care what disorder she has. she hurt a child, she cant be trusted around them.

 

[ILOKAL]

I guess I just don't even care what disorder she has. she hurt a child, she cant be trusted around them.

I don't think anyone would disagree that until she is clearly diagnosed and successfully treated, she is a danger to herself and others.

 

[sallye818]

Does anyone else think that the miscarriage (alleged by the tenant living in the Hanna's home) may have triggered any of this?

 

[ILOKAL]

Does anyone else think that the miscarriage (alleged by the tenant living in the Hanna's home) may have triggered any of this?

It certainly could have played a role.

 

[blefuscu]

http://kfor.com/2015/11/24/suspect-in-toddler-kidnapping-case-was-erratic-officers-say/

How could she drive and not have an accident being in such an erratic state?
We are all here expressing our views and opinions. Mine is that Abigail is faking her mental state because she was caught. She lied all she could and was able to try to hide her crime. So, until we are provided with more information, I still think this woman is nothing but trying to avoid the consequences of what she did. Manipulative comes to mind.

I mentioned earlier in the thread about a time I was psychotic and drove for several hours without any conscious knowledge of doing it. I had no clue where I was or how I got there. I didn't have an accident. I just drove. It's possible and not a sign that she's "faking" anything.

 

[trixandhoney]

I mentioned earlier in the thread about a time I was psychotic and drove for several hours without any conscious knowledge of doing it. I had no clue where I was or how I got there. I didn't have an accident. I just drove. It's possible and not a sign that she's "faking" anything.

Absolutely. Mental illness is not black and white - it's a continuum. There is no script to predict behavior.

I think it's helpful to look at mental illness through the biology of the brain. It can happen to anyone, just as anyone can get cancer. Brain scans of people with mental illness look different than brains of people who are "normal". That's science.

 

[bluesneakers]

I mentioned earlier in the thread about a time I was psychotic and drove for several hours without any conscious knowledge of doing it. I had no clue where I was or how I got there. I didn't have an accident. I just drove. It's possible and not a sign that she's "faking" anything.

True. Experiencing psychosis doesn't mean you're completely out of touch and unable to do anything.