People v. Hilton, No. 94CA0457

• Docket Nº: No. 94CA0457
• Citation: 902 P.2d 883
• Case Date: February 23, 1995
• Court: Court of Appeals of Colorado

Page 883

902 P.2d 883 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gary HILTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94CA0457.
Colorado Court of Appeals,
Div. IV. Feb. 23, 1995.
Rehearing Denied March 30, 1995.
Certiorari Denied Aug. 28, 1995.

Page 884

Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., John J. Krause, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Baroway, Porter & Thomas, P.C., E. Scott Baroway, Englewood, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion by Judge PLANK.

Defendant, Gary Hilton, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for release from the Colorado Department of Institutions (DOI). We affirm.

After a jury trial, defendant was found not guilty by reason of impaired mental condition and was committed to the custody of the DOI. At some point during his commitment, defendant was convicted of possessing contraband while in the Arapahoe County Jail awaiting trial and was sentenced to ten years in the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), to run concurrently with his commitment.

Defendant petitioned the court for release, pursuant to § 16-8-115, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), and the court ordered a release examination to be performed. At the time he petitioned the court for a release hearing, defendant was actually in the custody of the DOC, having been transferred there because he could not be safely confined at the state hospital.

The dispositional committee that performed the release examination concluded that, as long as defendant remained in the custody of the DOC, he did not pose a danger to the community and that, therefore, he met the test for release as provided in § 16-8-120(4), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A). However, at the release hearing, a psychiatrist who had been a member of the dispositional committee testified that the committee believed that if defendant were released into the community, he would be dangerous.

At the release hearing before the court, the trial court concluded that: 1) under § 16-8-115(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), sufficient evidence had been introduced at the hearing to shift the burden to defendant

Page 885

to demonstrate that he was eligible for release; and 2) under § 16-8-120(4), defendant was not eligible for release because he had an abnormal mental condition which would likely cause him to be dangerous if released into the community. In this appeal, defendant challenges these conclusions.

I.

Defendant first contends that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the phrase "abnormal mental condition" as used in the test for release set forth in § 16-8-120(4). We disagree.

The test for release of a defendant who is committed to the DOI after being found not guilty by reason of impaired mental condition is:

That the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be likely to cause him to be dangerous either to himself or to others or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Section 16-8-120(4).

Defendant argues that because the phrase "abnormal mental condition" is not expressly defined in the statute, we must look for other statutory sections using this phrase and construe it according to that usage. He points to the definitional section of the statute where the phrase "abnormal mental condition" is used within the definition of the phrase "impaired mental condition." That section provides:

"Impaired mental condition" means a condition of mind, caused by mental disease or defect, which ... prevents the person from forming a culpable mental state which is an essential element of a crime charged. For the purposes of this subsection (2.7), "mental disease or defect" includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions which grossly and demonstrably impair a persons's perception or understanding of reality ... except that it does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

Section 16-8-102(2.7), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) (emphasis added).

...