Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
Beginning in June, Thomson Reuters News & Insight content will be available exclusively on WestlawNext®, as part of its Practitioner Insights offering. On June 21, the Thomson Reuters News & Insight website, iPhone® app and newsletters will be discontinued. See Frequently Asked Questions to learn more.

New York Legal

  •  
  •  

State appellate courthouse, 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn. REUTERS Chip East

Ex-mental facility patient can't be confined without recommitment order: ruling

11/29/2012 COMMENTS (0)

By Jessica Dye

NEW YORK, Nov 29 (Reuters) - A New York appeals court has blocked a provision that would allow officials to seek the temporary confinement of a man who had been in a secure mental facility without a recommitment order.

Robert T. was acquitted of second-degree manslaughter by reason of mental disease or defect in 1996 and confined to a secure mental facility.

Years after he was conditionally discharged, a judge approved an order containing a provision allowing state officials to seek to temporarily confine Robert T. to perform a psychiatric evaluation if he failed to abide by his court-ordered treatment plan or voluntarily appear for an examination.

State officials cannot seek the confinement of an insanity acquittee without first applying for and receiving a recommitment order, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held on Wednesday. Attempts to do so could deprive him of his due process rights, the majority found.

Under New York State Criminal Procedure Law 330.20(14), a defendant must have advance notice and the opportunity to be heard before a court grants an order to recommit. Prosecutors or state mental-health authorities can seek an order of recommitment if they believe a released defendant has a "dangerous mental disorder" and should be reconfined.

"The creation of wholly new mechanisms of enforcement that mimic procedures prescribed by statute and regulation, but lack the same procedural safeguards, is unwarranted and troubling from a due process perspective," Justice Leonard Austin wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justices Sandra Sgroi and Anita Florio.

DRIVER DEATH

Robert T., 64, had a "long psychiatric history," according to the decision. In 1995, he drove his car into oncoming traffic in a purported suicide attempt and wound up killing the driver of the car he hit, the ruling said. He was confined to a secure mental facility after being found not responsible for second-degree manslaughter by reason of mental defect or disease.

In 2002, Robert T. was released pursuant to an order of conditions, which outlined the conditions of his release, including a treatment plan.

State officials moved to extend the order in 2010. They also asked a judge to add a provision stating that the Office of Mental Health "shall apply to the court for a temporary confinement order for the purpose of conducting an effective psychiatric examination in a secure facility," if Robert T. refused to comply with the order or appear for a psychiatric examination.

After Dutchess County Supreme Court Justice Christine Sproat approved the amended order, Robert T. sought a writ of prohibition to block the temporary confinement provision from taking effect.

In granting Robert T.'s application, the Second Department said that the disputed provision "improperly establishes an ex parte enforcement proceeding for addressing violations of the amended order of conditions."

In dissent, Justice Reinaldo Rivera agreed with state officials that a temporary confinement order could serve as a less intrusive alternative to recommitment proceedings.

"It is simply another means to avert an insanity acquitee's potential degeneration or devolution into a 'dangerous mental disorder,'" Rivera wrote.

The New York attorney general's office, which represented Sproat, the Ulster County district attorney and the state Office of Mental Health, declined to comment. A lawyer for Robert T. and a spokeswoman for the Ulster County district attorney also declined to comment. A spokesman for the Office of Mental Health did not immediately return a request for comment.

The case is In the Matter of Robert T. v. Sproat, Appellate Division, Second Department, No. 2011-3469.

For Robert T.: Lesley De Lia and Dennis Feld, of the Mental Hygiene Legal Services.

For Sproat and OMH: Susan Anspach.

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook 


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters