Grass v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 87751.,No. ED 87816.,No. ED 87792.,No. ED 87708.,ED 87708.,ED 87751.,ED 87792.,ED 87816. |
| Citation | 220 S.W.3d 335 |
| Parties | Lloyd E. GRASS, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Irene Karns, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Ronald Q. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Springfield, MO, for respondent.
Before ROY L. RICHTER, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.
Petitioner, who is in the custody of the Department of Mental Health after having pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease to the murder of his wife, filed applications for conditional and unconditional release. The trial court entered a judgment that denied petitioner's application for unconditional release but granted petitioner's application for conditional release. Both parties appeal. Petitioner appeals from that part of the judgment denying his application for unconditional release. The state appeals from that part of the judgment granting petitioner's application for conditional release. We affirm that part of the judgment denying the application for unconditional release, and we reverse and remand that part of the judgment granting the application for conditional release.
On October 14, 1992, petitioner, Lloyd E. Grass, stabbed his wife to death. He was immediately evaluated as "markedly psychotic" at Malcolm Bliss Mental Health Center and admitted to the Biggs Forensic Center of Fulton State Hospital that same day. On October 20, 1992 he was returned to jail with a discharge diagnosis of Brief Reactive Psychosis, Resolved (Provisional); Cannabis Dependence, In Remission While Hospitalized; and Delirium, Resolved (Provisional). The state charged him with murder in the first degree in Warren County. On November 9, 1993, petitioner was readmitted to the Biggs Forensic Center of Fulton State Hospital for a court-ordered pretrial mental evaluation.
Richard Gowdy, Ph.D., who was then a certified forensic examiner for the Biggs Forensic Center, saw petitioner for a pretrial mental evaluation on November 9, 1993 and again on July 19, 1994. Dr. Gowdy diagnosed him with Psychotic Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified, In Partial Remission. Dr. Gowdy provided the court with his opinion that as a result of a mental disease, petitioner did not fully know and appreciate the nature, quality and wrongfulness of his conduct and was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of his wife's death. In September 1994, the Warren County circuit court accepted petitioner's plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and committed him to the custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health, which placed him in the Biggs Forensic Center of the Fulton State Hospital.
Subsequently, on March 16, 1995, the Department of Mental Health transferred him to the less restrictive St. Louis State Hospital. In October 1995, petitioner filed a petition with the probate division of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis to obtain a conditional release. That court granted the conditional release, but this court reversed. Grass v. Nixon, 926 S.W.2d 67, 68 (Mo.App.1996).
On August 8, 1996, petitioner was granted full unescorted privileges. The next day, petitioner escaped from the St. Louis State Hospital. After being arrested in New York, petitioner was extradited to Missouri. Petitioner was thereafter convicted of escape from commitment and sentenced to a term of five years in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. After serving twenty-eight months in prison, petitioner was paroled back to the custody of the Department of Mental Health in March 2001.
In February 2003, petitioner filed an application for unconditional release,1 which the trial court denied. After this court affirmed that judgment, the Missouri Supreme Court granted petitioner's application for transfer and reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine the independence of the expert appointed to examine the petitioner and make a recommendation about his suitability for release. Grass v. State, 134 S.W.3d 34, 35 (Mo. banc 2004).
In August 2004, petitioner filed new pro se motions for conditional and unconditional release, and counsel filed amended applications for release. The trial court consolidated the applications and tried the cases in February 2005. On February 1, 2006, the trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment. In response to the state's post-opinion motion, the trial court later entered an amended judgment. The court denied petitioner's application for unconditional release but granted petitioner's application for conditional release. Petitioner and the state appeal.
In his sole point on appeal, petitioner contends that the trial court erroneously applied Section 552.040 RSMo (2000) when it denied his petition for unconditional release. Petitioner argues that the law requires his unconditional release because the trial court made findings in its judgment on his application for conditional release that petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) he does not currently suffer from a mental disease or defect; 2) he is not a danger to himself or others and is not likely in the foreseeable future to commit another violent crime because of mental illness; and 3) he is aware of the nature and wrongfulness of the crime underlying his commitment and currently has the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
When we review a judgment on an application for unconditional release, we affirm the judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. See State v. Revels, 13 S.W.3d 293, 297 (Mo. banc 2000) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)).
Section 552.040.7 governs the procedure for a hearing on an application for unconditional release. Subsection (6) of this statute provides in part:
The burden of persuasion for any person committed to a mental health facility under the provisions of this section upon acquittal on the grounds of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility shall be on the party seeking unconditional release to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person for whom unconditional release is sought does not have, and in the reasonable future is not likely to have, a mental disease or defect rendering the person dangerous to the safety of himself or others.
Section 552.040.7(6). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the opposing evidence and that leaves the fact finder with the abiding conviction that the evidence is true. Marsh v. State, 942 S.W.2d 385, 390 (Mo. App.1997).
Section 552.040.9 further requires that "[n]o committed person shall be unconditionally released unless it is determined through the procedures in this section that the person does not have, and in the reasonable future is not likely to have, a mental disease or defect rendering the person dangerous to the safety of himself or others." See State v. Gratts, 112 S.W.3d 12, 18 (Mo.App.2003); see also State v. Weekly, 107 S.W.3d 340, 346 (Mo. App.2003).
In its findings, conclusions, and judgment on the application for conditional release, the trial court found that petitioner "does not suffer from any mental disease or defect as set forth in Chapter 552 RSMo,"2 "is not likely to be dangerous to others while on conditional release,"3 "is not now and is not likely in the reasonable future to commit another violent crime against another person because of his mental illness,"4 and "is aware of the nature of his violent crime committed against another person and presently possesses the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his violent crime against another person and his capacity to conform to the requirement of the law in the future."5 However, it did not make the finding required by sections 552.040.7(6) and 552.040.9 for unconditional release that petitioner was not likely in the reasonable future to have a mental disease or defect rendering him dangerous to the safety of himself or others. This is a different factual finding from those required for conditional release, and it is not encompassed by the findings made on conditional release. The "reasonable future" is a broader time frame than "while on conditional release," and "dangerous to the safety of himself or others" is a broader condition than "likely . . . to commit another violent crime" against another. Thus, the trial court's findings on conditional release do not mandate petitioner's unconditional release.
In the argument under this point, petitioner also argues that insufficient evidence supports the trial court's decision to deny unconditional release.6 We disagree.
Because the court relied heavily on the three expert witnesses7 to support its denial of unconditional release, we start our analysis with these experts' reports and testimony. The court retained Jeffrey Kline, Ph.D., a psychologist for the Department of Mental Health, to do a mental evaluation of petitioner. Dr. Kline reviewed petitioner's legal and medical records and examination reports, read research studies on violence risk assessment, and had two interviews with petitioner for a total of 225 minutes. In considering conditional release, Dr. Kline found that "an important component to ensuring the safety of others," if petitioner would be released, "is dependent upon his ability to either self monitor his psychiatric symptoms or comply with monitoring ordered by the court." In recommending against unconditional release, he found petiti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grass v. Reitz
...from those required for conditional release, and it is not encompassed by the findings made on conditional release.Grass v. State, 220 S.W.3d 335, 340 (Mo.Ct.App.2007). The court did not address Grass's Foucha due-process challenge. As to the State's appeal, the court of appeals agreed that......
-
Grass v. Reitz, 13–1569.
...and the State appealed. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Grass's petition for unconditional release. Grass v. State, 220 S.W.3d 335, 340 (Mo.Ct.App.2007). The court concluded that, even though the circuit court had found that Grass currently was not mentally ill or a dan......
-
Grass v. Reitz
...underlying his commitment and currently has the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." Grass v. State of Mo., 220 S.W.3d 335, 339 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). In other words, petitioner argued that the trial court's finding on conditional release entitled him to unconditio......
-
State v. Larrington
... ... § 552.040.7(6); Weekly, 107 S.W.3d at 346. "Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the opposing evidence and that leaves the fact finder with the abiding conviction that the evidence is true." Grass v. State, 220 S.W.3d 335, 339 (Mo. App. E.D.2007) ... Mr. Larrington failed to present clear and convincing evidence that in the reasonable future he is not likely to have a mental disease or defect rendering him dangerous to the safety of himself or others. The evidence was ... ...