IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE L. (ANONYMOUS), APPELLANT.
85 N.Y.2d 295, 648 N.E.2d 475, 624 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1995).
March 23, 1995
2 No. 46 (1995 NY Int. 054)
Decided March 23, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Kim L. Darrow, for Appellant.
Bridget Rahilly Steller, for Respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
This case presents the difficult question whether a mentally ill
individual--found to be not responsible, by reason of mental disease
or defect, of committing a violent crime --"currently constitutes a
physical danger to himself or others" (CPL 330.20(1)(c)) so as to
remain confined in a secure psychiatric hospital even though his
symptoms have improved considerably. We agree with both the trial
court and the Appellate Division that, in this case, the People
sustained their statutory burden of showing current dangerousness.
I.
On June 28, 1990, appellant was released from the psychiatric unit at
St. Francis Hospital in Dutchess County where he had been admitted two
weeks earlier, after assaulting his father. Although the doctors at
St. Francis apparently misdiagnosed appellant as suffering from
bipolar disorder--a less serious illness than the acute paranoid
schizophrenia from which he actually suffers--while at St. Francis,
appellant received neuroleptic medication, a treatment also suitable
for schizophrenics.
The hospital records indicate that appellant was released from St.
Francis based on the doctors' opinion that because he had become
"medication compliant" and had gained greater insight into his
illness, he would continue treatment at an outpatient clinic, continue
taking his medication, and abstain from alcohol and marijuana (which
exacerbated his violent and delusional behavior).
On July 8, however, only ten days after his release from St. Francis,
believing that he was the Messiah, that the world was about to end,
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE L., APPELLANT.
This case presents the difficult question whether a mentally ill individual--found to be not
We agree with both the trial court and the Appellate Division that, in this case, the People
Although the doctors at St. Francis apparently misdiagnosed appellant as suffering from
The hospital records indicate that appellant was released from St. Francis based on the
On August 15, 1990, after receiving the recommendation of two independent psychiatrists, the
Four months later, after being discharged from Mid-Hudson because his delusional thinking had
* * * the defendant attempted to present himself from a good light, * * * his mental status
Three psychiatrists then examined appellant and submitted reports to assist the trial court
he People have sustained their burden of demonstrating that the petitioner suffers from a
Thus, having been retained either in a psychiatric hospital or in prison for the seventeen
appellant points to the People's failure to offer evidence of violent acts in the seventeen
Without such evidence, he reasons, the People's case improperly depended upon the nature of
As the Law Revision Commission which proposed the legislation substantially incorporated in
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
