State v. Ardizzone

Decision Date18 October 2022
Docket NumberAC 44238
Citation215 Conn.App. 854,283 A.3d 982
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Vincent ARDIZZONE
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals

J. Patten Brown III, West Hartford, for the appellant (acquittee).

Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Margaret E. Kelley, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Prescott, Elgo and Flynn, Js.

ELGO, J.

The acquittee,1 Vincent Ardizzone, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board). On appeal, the acquittee claims that there is no evidence in the record to support the court's finding that he suffered from a qualifying mental illness that caused him to be a danger to himself or others. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The acquittee killed his father on November 29, 1991, as a result of a delusional belief that his father was molesting his daughter. On January 12, 1993, the acquittee was found not guilty of the charge of murder by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13.2

On March 5, 1993, the acquittee was committed to the jurisdiction of the board for a period not to exceed thirty-five years. At the time of his commitment, the acquittee had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was experiencing psychotic symptoms, was abusing alcohol, and was not complying with psychiatric treatment. That term of commitment is due to expire on March 4, 2028.

At the beginning of his confinement, the acquittee was committed to a maximum security facility and initially was reported to be progressing well. A report from that facility dated February 25, 1994, indicated that the acquittee had involved himself in therapeutic opportunities and maintained good relationships with the treatment teams. On July 17, 1994, however, the acquittee was placed in four point restraints after threatening staff. Although the acquittee thereafter was observed talking to himself and the walls, he nonetheless claimed that he no longer was ill and that he never had suffered from schizophrenia. A subsequent report from the facility in August, 1994, indicated that the acquittee had stopped taking his medication, was experiencing symptoms of psychosis, and had engaged in inappropriate behavior and sexual improprieties that resulted in his transfer to a different facility unit.

Approximately six months later, in February, 1995, the acquittee was placed in three hours of locked seclusion due to disruptive behavior. A report from the facility to the board, dated July, 1995, indicated that, although the acquittee had requested transfer to a less restrictive facility, he continued to refuse psychiatric medication and remained in "total denial of his mental illness and the existence of symptoms of mental illness." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Over the next two years, the acquittee began to show progress in his mental health treatment. He agreed to resume his psychotropic medication and his participation in treatment groups was described as "candid" and "forthcoming." In light of that progress, the acquittee was transferred to a less restrictive facility on August 20, 1998.

In a report issued approximately one year later, the board found that the acquittee had exhibited a lack of insight into his crime and his mental illness. The board noted that the acquittee continued to minimize his crime and believed that he had been cured of his mental illness for at least four years.

In 2000, two reported incidents occurred involving the acquittee and his girlfriend. In January, the acquittee and his girlfriend impermissibly engaged in sexual activity in a visitor's room at the hospital facility. In April, the girlfriend reported that the acquittee had made harassing telephone calls to her. Thereafter, the acquittee's privilege level was reduced due to an increased risk of his leaving the facility without permission.

In January, 2001, the facility reported to the board that the acquittee had displayed difficulty adhering to rules and regulations of the facility and had struggled to be open and honest with his treatment team. The following month, the acquittee's privilege level was placed on hold after he made an inappropriate and sexually suggestive comment to a female patient. In March, 2001, the acquittee admitted to sending money to women in exchange for written letters and phone conversations, as well as provocative photographs. Further, the acquittee shared sexually explicit materials with two male patients in violation of facility policy.

On December 14, 2001, the board held a hearing to review the status of the acquittee, which was continued to May 3, 2002. The testimony adduced at that hearing indicated that the acquittee had displayed significant difficulty in all treatment aspects. The testimony revealed that the acquittee had sent a letter intended for his daughter, in violation of both the facility's mail policy and the acquittee's divorce decree, which forbade any contact between the acquittee and his daughter. Testimony at the hearing also indicated that the acquittee continued to violate the facility's policies regarding sexual relationships and that he appeared superficially highly functioning and socially adept but had demonstrated a "consistent level of inappropriate behaviors that now required him to be transferred to a more secure unit." Paul Amble, a forensic psychiatrist for Connecticut Valley Hospital, testified at the hearing that the acquittee had displayed a level of character pathology and poor impulse control, and that he presented a danger to vulnerable patients. The acquittee thereafter was transferred to a maximum security facility on December 14, 2001.

In the following years, the acquittee was transferred between maximum security and less restrictive confinement on a near yearly cycle. Transfers to a less restrictive confinement were based on treatment progress made during periods of maximum security confinement. Once the acquittee was returned to a less restrictive confinement, however, he resumed rule breaking behaviors, including sexual impropriety, gambling, selling cigarettes to other patients, and assaultive behavior.

On June 22, 2006, the facility reported that the acquittee was psychiatrically stable and taking prescribed medication. That report detailed the acquittee's goals for treatment, including "full acceptance of his mental illness, an analysis of risk factors for emotional and behavioral decompensation as well as those for substance abuse and gambling." The report concluded that, although the acquittee was medically compliant and had attained a good degree of clinical stability, "his own personality and characterological issues will need to be monitored to assure that his behavior is conforming to the unit rules." Six months later, on January 9, 2007, the acquittee filed an application in a self-represented capacity for discharge from the jurisdiction of the board, but this application ultimately was withdrawn.

Following a review hearing in August, 2007, at which the board found the acquittee clinically stable despite the fact that he continued to loan money to other patients against staff advice, the acquittee was granted temporary leave to visit with friends and family twice per month. At a subsequent hearing on March 20, 2009, the board heard testimony that the acquittee had used his temporary leave to visit with family members, had taken his medication, and had not displayed any episodes of violence. The testimony also revealed, however, that the acquittee's participation in recommended treatment activities was "selective" and that he continued to violate facility rules by loaning a large amount of money to a relative. At a status review hearing held months later, the board granted temporary leave for the acquittee to participate in day treatment services in the community four days per week.

In March, 2011, the board held another hearing to consider further temporary leave for the acquittee. At this hearing, it was discovered that the acquittee had engaged in numerous episodes of rule breaking behavior while attending day treatment in the community, including sexual impropriety and accruing significant credit card debt of approximately $14,000. The board subsequently voted to transfer the acquittee to the Community Mental Health Center in New Haven for day treatment service that provided more structure and a higher level of supervision.

In December, 2011, the board denied the facility's request to allow the acquittee to have overnight visits in the community based on testimony from medical experts. Significantly, in the nine months since the previous status hearing, the acquittee had increased his credit card debt to approximately $17,000. The board thus concluded that financial stress was a risk factor for psychiatric decompensation due to the acquittee's history of impulsive behavior, poor decision making, and increased risk if transitioned to a setting with decreased supervision and monitoring.

At a subsequent hearing on May 31, 2013, the acquittee's treatment providers testified that he was an active member in his treatment groups and individual therapy. The acquittee was reported to have made good progress and had no deterioration of his mental state. Although the acquittee had continued to engage in rule violations, his providers testified that he had not engaged in violent or threatening behaviors. In light of his treatment progress, the acquittee was permitted to transition to a residential program and reside overnight in the community with continued supervision and treatment.

On August 21, 2015, the board held another review hearing at which the board determined that, despite attending treatment sessions and remaining clinically stable, the acquittee's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • DAB Three, LLC v. Fitzpatrick
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 18 Octubre 2022
    ... ... It did not issue it; the policy was issued by AISLIC. LEISA was authorized to act as an insurance broker in the state of Connecticut at that time ... None of the other [2006] defendants were authorized to act as, and did not act as insurance brokers in the state of ... ...
  • State v. Ardizzone
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 2023
    ...assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 215 Conn. App. 854, 283 A.3d 982 (2022), is ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT