 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greeno v. State11/28/2000
appeal, we noted that section 552.040.9, which authorizes conditional releases, "impliedly recognizes that a person seeking conditional release is a person who is still suffering from a mental disease or defect." Styles I, 838 S.W.2d at 11. We went on to observe that because of this, the question is whether the person is likely to be dangerous to others by virtue of conditional release and whether such person is likely to commit another crime in the reasonable future because of the mental illness. Id. But we also acknowledged Foucha's holding that "the due process rights of a person are violated if the state holds a person in a psychiatric facility when the person is no longer suffering from a mental disease or defect." Id. We then stated:
Under Foucha, it is necessary for a court to make a finding that an insanity acquittee is suffering from a mental illness or defect before it can order that such person shall remain in a mental institution. Thus, a denial of a conditional release must be based on a finding that the person is suffering from a mental disease or defect to justify the denial of release. Id.
After a careful review of the record, we concluded that the trial court made no finding whether Styles was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the hearing and that the record was "not clear as to whether or not Styles was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the hearing because Dr. Singh was never asked that specific question. . . . Thus, on the record presented, this court can not make a finding of whether or not Styles was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the hearing." Id. Therefore, we reversed the trial court's decision and remanded for the court to make a finding on the question of whether Styles was suffering from a mental disease or defect. Styles I, 838 S.W.2d at 12. We further directed the trial court to re-open the case and take additional evidence if needed to resolve that question. Id.
The Missouri Supreme Court recently addressed the same issue raised in Styles I in the context of unconditional releases pursuant to section 552.040.5. In State v. Revels, 13 S.W.3d 293 (Mo. banc 2000), Revels argued that the trial court erred by denying his application for unconditional release without making a specific finding as to whether he suffered from a mental disease or defect, relying on Styles I and Foucha as support. Id. at 295-96. The Court rejected the argument, holding that " here is no requirement that before denying an unconditional release, the circuit court make specific findings that an insanity acquittee is suffering from a mental disease or defect, unless findings are requested in accordance with Rule 73.01(c)." Id. at 296. In doing so, however, the Court did not overrule the holding in Styles I. Rather, it seemingly approved of it, distinguishing it on the basis that it involved a conditional release, when it stated " he Styles I opinion does not control Revels' case because it addressed a conditional release, which is governed by subsections 10 through 18, and 20 of section 552.040." Id. Accordingly, it appears there is a requirement for a specific finding as to whether an insanity acquittee is suffering from a mental disease or defect in conditional release cases, but there is no such requirement in unconditional release cases.
The instant appeal is from the denial of an application for conditional release. Therefore, Styles I is controlling and we are confronted with the same problem that existed in that case. The trial court made no finding on the question whether Mr. Greeno was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the hearing. Likewise, none of the doctors who testi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|