Parsons v. District Court of Pushmataha County

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that post-acquittal proceedings concerning therapeutic visits for a person acquitted by reason of insanity are civil in nature and within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. It further held that the State, as the objecting party under 22 O.S. 2011 § 1161(F)(3), bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that therapeutic visits are unnecessary or that their proposed nature and extent are inappropriate. The court reversed the trial court's order sustaining the State's objection and remanded for a new hearing.

Holdings

1. Proceedings concerning therapeutic visits for an insanity acquittee under 22 O.S. 2011 § 1161(F) are civil in nature because they concern ongoing mental-health treatment rather than punishment for a criminal offense; therefore, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction.
2. The State, as the party objecting to therapeutic visits under 22 O.S. 2011 § 1161(F)(3), bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the visits are unnecessary for treatment or that their proposed nature or extent is excessive or inappropriate.
3. When the State objects to therapeutic visits, the trial court must determine whether the visits are necessary for treatment and, if so, the nature and extent of the visits, as required by 22 O.S. 2011 § 1161(F)(3)(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether proceedings concerning therapeutic visits for a person acquitted by reason of insanity under 22 O.S. 2011 § 1161(F) are civil or criminal for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.
2. Whether the State, as the party objecting to therapeutic visits, bears the burden of proof.
3. Whether the trial court was required to determine whether therapeutic visits were necessary for treatment and, if so, the nature and extent of the visits under 22 O.S. 2011 § 1161(F)(3)(b).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded