I have tried reading the statute on insanity and then going to the HSC. The legislature has got to make this easier to decipher. Has anyone proceeded with civil commitment proceedings after a not guilty by reason of insanity and how long is the guy likely to stay in a mental hospital? Any help would be appreciated.

If you can delay your commitment for a little while, TDCAA will have a published book on the subject with all the answers. Coming very soon.

We just had one of these as well. How long is a 'short wait'?

The new statute, formerly SB 837, which will be the new 46C, won't cover your case, Kerry, unless proceedings weren't initiated until after September 1, 2005. And it sounds like you've already gotten the NGRI verdict. Send me your e-mail or call me and I can either send you something or we'll try to muddle through the process.

Note that the trial court retains jurisdiction under the now-repealed 46.03. Consequently, though post-disposition "civil" commitment proceedings are held pursuant to the Mental Health Code, when such procedures are not in conflict with 46.03, the courts have moved firmly toward conceptualizing NGRI's as a separate class of persons subject to commitment, with somewhat lower standards for commitment and a substantially higher standard for release. As a result, the trial court holds great power in these matters. Look at the series of Campbell cases to see how the courts have responded.

The new 46C will permit commitment for that period of time for which the person could have been incarcerated had they been found guilty. While no similar rule exists in 46.03, persons have been held for quite extended periods. (One local issue is that the costs are allocated to the local MHMR center and takes away from bed space for regular commitments - which is a problem but not your problem.)

I would be glad to comment back channel.

flj

Has anyone handled one of these recently? I have a case on my docket - Robbery and Taking Weapon from Peace Officer - where I'm probably not in a good position to argue against insanity at the time of the offenses. The State's local expert has already told me so. I have Jane's book, and it's a great help - especially the flow charts. But this is all still a bit confusing.

46C.154 allows a dismissal because of insanity, and that has the same effect as an NGRI verdict. Now what? He's a dangerous guy, and I'm certain the court would make the dangerous conduct determination. Can I make an agreement with the defense that the State will dismiss because of insanity if the defense will stipulate to the dangerous conduct finding? Does anyone have forms to cover all of this? Help!

I have had two of these cases recently where I filed an agreed motion to dismiss due to insanity and will e-mail you the forms I prepared.

PW, I tried to e-mail you and it did not go through. Please e-mail me and I will reply with the attachments. ken.sparks@co.colorado.tx.us

[This message was edited by Ken Sparks on 09-29-08 at .]

You may not want to dismiss! Else you are then reliant upon the Probate Courts and garden-variety civil commitment which will result in rapid release of the patient. Consider an agreed plea, with a finding of NGRI which will allow a .251 commitment for evaluation and subsequent commitment for 18 months (the first time) -- wherein the court determines when the patient is to be released, not the docs.

Also, think seriously about giving up the "dangerous conduct" designation, for that puts you directly in the Probate Court's arena and your criminal court loses jurisdiction....

Under CCP Chapter 46C an agreed dismissal based on insanity has the same effect as a finding of NGRI. And a finding of dangerous conduct was made.

After a def. is found NGRI, he's sent to the state hospital for up to one year, or until he is safe to be released to the public. After one year, unless the court finds he is still a danger, he is released.

In the case I had, the state hospital was extremely eager to release my def., even tho' he had been a dangerous mental case most of his life. He had a history of blowing off medications, and self medicating with cocaine, and then becoming extremely dangerous (he had been charged with breaking into a female JP's home, and threatening to rape her. He claimed she had a tumor in her brain and he had to remove it.)

We had a hearing, and the head psychiatrist assured the court that the mental health authorities in Tivoli (pop. about 100) could take care of this patient on an out-patient basis. He also said that his family would be there to be a support-group. He was unaware that there was no MHMR clinic in Tivoli, and he was unaware that his mother was a half-wit, that his grown son lived in another part of the state, and his oldest child at home was 9 years old. He also admitted that they would not dare trust him to take his meds as required at the hospital. He was required to take his meds in front of a nurse, who had authority to check the inside of his mouth to make sure he wasn't "cheeking" the pills.

I have never dealt with such an intellectually dishonest expert witness. I had to ask him one question 8 different ways, and he still refused to answer me. It was very contentious.

The court agreed to let him out, but he had to report daily to the MHMR clinic in Victoria M-F, and he had all these conditions on him. About 10 days after his release he admitted to the clinic staff he'd quit taking his meds, and had started drinking again, so he was picked up and sent off to the state hospital.

I later sent a transcript of our big hearing to the hospital administrator, and showed her where I asked the same simple question 8 times, and complained about his dishonesty. He later claimed that I had caused the heart attack he suffered a few weeks after our hearing.

It was apparent that the hospital does not look out for the best interests of its patient, or the safety of society. Their interest is in simply stabilizing the patient on drugs, and then kicking him out the door.

That was several years ago, and after that each year they said he needed more time. Last Feb. they said he could be released. He was now on a new med that he receives in a shot every mo. and apparently he has his drug and alco. abuse under control. He's been out since then and appears to be doing ok. But he takes lots of monitoring.

Be very leery when the state hospitals say a dangerous mental case is ok to leave. Trust your common sense.

If, hypothetically speaking, a plea bargain were entered into that placed the defendant on community supervision, should there be a concern that the insanity issue may rear its ugly head upon the filing of a motion to revoke many years down the road? It's a separate issue from competency, I know. I'm just curious.

My case might be easier to decide if I were dealing with some habitual criminal. But instead I'm dealing with what appears to be a decent and respectable young college student -- who may be suffering the onsent of paranoid schizophrenia; and who is built like a Mack truck. Three frightening words come to mind when he's having an "episode": "Hulk smash you!"

First, Ken you are right that .253 would have the same effect as a trial decision - the issue is the finding of dangerous conduct.

Second, look at .263.
In Harris County we are experimenting with using probation as a means of ensuring compliance with treatment in cases wherein there is some likelihood of social support that would encourage the def/patient to be involved in treatment. The value of this approach contrasts with that if the def/patient were NGRI and no dangerous conduct found, for then the court loses jurisdiction to monitor him/her. But if you retain the finding of dangerous conduct then the court has some leverage to ensure compliance with treatment -- which would include modification of the commitment back to inpatient if the def/patient didn't follow through. Jail is not a remedy but slam dunk to Vernon is..

a year and a half ago, i was attacked. I was stabbed repeatedly in the face and neck with a glass bottle,suffered massive blood loss and major nerve damage. The defendants father is a civil attorney and obviously very good by the way his sons case is going. The original judge released him on a pr bond without even hearing any type of impact statement from me or my baby sister that had to witness it. not only has he been out of jail this entire time, the DA says her hands are tied. they have to let him go because he was found insane at the time of the crime, but some how does not pose any future threat of violence. I am not a lawyer! Please help, any will do. I know this person, and he will hurt someone else. what can i do to persuade the court to maintain jurisdiction instead of letting him walk.

Please e-mail me at mister23g@gmail.com

thank you for reading