What can be done if anything when State's expert says defendant is insane at the time of the offense because he was not on medication and is now still mentally ill but does not meet current criteria for civil commitment--however, you still feel he is a threat to your victim who he stalked in your case. (victim was a former girlfriend of his 30 years ago--defendant is a nut)

Protective order?

Why, if he still poses a threat to the gf, does the expert think he is not eligible for a civil commitment?

She doesn't--but I have my reservations.

They had one date 30 years ago--ie. not intimate

46C desperately needs to be changed. At the moment, although an NGRI, if charged with conduct that caused SBI, placed another in imminent danger of SBI, or threatened SBI, must be committed to Vernon for evaluation under 46C.251.

However, any subsequent civil commitment - which remains under jurisdiction of the criminal court -must rely upon a single standard (unlike H&S 574.034/.035) which is dangerousness to others, see 46C.253(b)(2).

In H&S commitments the facility controls relase, in NGRI commitments the court has that control. Moreover, juries are reluctant not to commit a person - at least initially - who has committed a crime meeting the criteria articulated at the outset (i.e. mental illness plus dangerousness to others).

The answer is, send the def to Vernon and hope you can get two physicians who say he needs continued treatment - if not bring him home and find two local physicians who will so opine.

[This message was edited by Floyd L. Jennings on 10-27-10 at .]

Or get a second opinion from another expert.

Jane you are right - but it is not necessary at the original trial; for 46C would mandate transfer to Vernon if there is yet sufficient basis to conclude that the def remains mentally ill (46C.157, 158 and Subchapt. F, 46C.251ff.).

You are certainly correct however that if a local expert opines the def does not now meet criteria for commitment, i.e. mental illness plus dangerousness to others, then Vernon is less likely to so opine. My concern, however, is that 9 of 10 local examiners don't know the standard!

Does anyone have a good judgment for not guilty by reason of insanity.