State v. Ardizzone

Citations

• 230 Conn. App. 187

Syllabus

The acquittee appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board pursuant to statute (§ 17a-593). He claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly found that, if he were discharged, he would present a danger to himself or others. Held: The trial court properly determined that the acquittee was not a person who should be discharged from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, as the court's finding that, if discharged, the acquittee would constitute a danger to himself or others was not clearly erroneous. The acquittee's claim that § 17a-593, as applied to him, was unconstitutionally vague was unavailing because he failed to meet his burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he had inadequate notice that noncompliance with the rules of his treating hospital could result in a denial of his application for discharge, as a reasonable person would have anticipated that the trial court would consider his noncompliance with hospital rules when making a determination of dangerousness pursuant to § 17a-593, and the acquittee was aware of the rules and that the rules were intended to mitigate his risk of dangerousness. The acquittee failed to meet his burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the victim of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of § 17a-593, as the trial court reached its dangerousness conclusion on the basis of evidence in the record of the acquittee's severe and repetitive noncompliant behavior, which was associated with risk factors for decompo- sition and dangerousness. Argued November 12, 2024—officially released January 21, 2025