State v. Foster
Citations
- 353 Conn. 1
Syllabus
The acquittee, who had been found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect of first degree burglary, risk of injury to a child, third degree assault, and possession of a weapon on school grounds, was committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board in 2003, for a period not to exceed ten years. The acquittee's commitment was extended multiple times by agreement of the parties, but, in 2018, he was granted conditional release and began living in the community, subject to his compli- ance with certain conditions relating to his ongoing mental health treatment. Thereafter, in 2019, the state filed a petition for an order to extend the acquittee's commitment pursuant to the statute (§ 17a-593 (c)) that permits recommitment when there is reasonable cause to believe that the acquittee ''remains a person with psychiatric disabilities . . . to the extent that his discharge at the expiration of his maximum term of commitment would constitute a danger to himself or others . . . .'' The acquittee moved to dismiss the state's petition on the ground that the recommitment procedure set forth in § 17a-593 (c) violated his right to equal protection under the United States constitution, but the trial court denied the acquittee's motion to dismiss, granted the state's petition, and extended the acquittee's commit- ment. In affirming the trial court's order extending commitment, the Appel- late Court rejected the acquittee's claim that the recommitment procedure set forth in § 17a-593 (c) violated his right to equal protection and upheld the trial court's finding that the state had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the acquittee suffered from a mental illness that resulted in 1 2 AUGUST, 2025 353 Conn. 1 State v. Foster his being a danger to himself or others. On the granting of certification, the acquittee appealed to this court. Held: The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the recommitment scheme contemplated by § 17a-593 (c) did not vi
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.