Summary
This Connecticut Appellate Court opinion addresses a petition by the state to extend the commitment of a defendant previously found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the state failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's discharge would pose an imminent danger to himself or others. Consequently, the case was remanded with directions to deny the petition for continued commitment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the state proved by clear and convincing evidence under General Statutes § 17a-593 (c) that the defendant's discharge after his maximum term of commitment would constitute an imminent danger to himself or others.
- Whether the trial court's finding that the defendant posed an imminent danger was clearly erroneous.
Holdings
- To continue an acquittee's commitment under General Statutes § 17a-593 (c), the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that, as a result of mental illness, the acquittee presents an imminent risk of physical injury to himself or others.
- The state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant would pose an imminent danger to himself or others if released from the board's jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“In sum, to satisfy its burden before the trial court in this matter, the state was obligated to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, as a result of his mental illness, the defendant posed a risk of imminent physical injury to himself or others.” (233 Conn. App. at 777)
“In the matter at hand, in which the defendant now has been confined for twenty-five years following the index offenses and fifteen years beyond the ten year period of maximum confinement initially imposed by the court, and in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that he is presently an imminent danger to himself or to others, he is entitled to his freedom.” (233 Conn. App. at 799)
Factual background
The defendant committed a 1997 bank robbery and related offenses while experiencing a manic, psychotic episode associated with prescribed medications and alcohol use. He was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in 2000 and remained under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for approximately twenty-five years. Although prior temporary leaves or conditional release had ended because of shoplifting, a suicide attempt, or alcohol use, the defendant had shown sustained treatment compliance, insight into his illness, and no recent violence or threatening behavior. At the 2023 commitment-extension hearing, the state's psychiatrist testified that the defendant was not presently dangerous under his existing treatment and did not testify that release would create an imminent risk of physical harm.
Procedural history
The defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in 2000 and committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for a maximum ten-year period. His commitment was extended several times by agreement. In December 2022, the state petitioned for another five-year extension; after a hearing, the Superior Court granted the petition. The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed and remanded with direction to deny the petition.
Remand instructions
The trial court was directed to deny the state's petition for continued commitment to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board.