State v. Dudley
| Decision Date | 05 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 903 S.W.2d 581 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James DUDLEY, Jr., Appellant. 49659. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Pattie Shostak, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before KENNEDY, P.J., and SMART and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.
James Dudley, Jr., appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying his section 552.040, RSMo 1986, petition for unconditional release from the custody of the Department of Mental Health.
Section 552.040 states that unconditional release will be ordered only if the patient proves that he "does not have, and in the reasonable future is not likely to have, a mental disease or defect rendering him dangerous to the safety of himself or others."
The statute also sets forth six non-exclusive factors for the trial court to consider in determining whether or not the committed person has a mental disease or defect and in determining whether in the reasonable future he is or is likely to be a danger to himself or others. The sixth factor is whether a determination that the committed person is not dangerous to himself or others is dependent on the person's continued use of medication.
The trial judge specifically found below, in his order or at the hearing, that Mr. Dudley still had chronic schizophrenia but that he was not dangerous to himself or others if he took his medication, and that he would continue to take his medication. The judge stated that he would unconditionally release Mr. Dudley unless the fact that Mr. Dudley would have to continue to take medication made him ineligible for release as a matter of law under the statute. The judge found that the statute did preclude Mr. Dudley's unconditional release for this reason.
On November 22, 1983, Mr. Dudley was charged with one count of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo. 1 On June 14, 1984, the Circuit Court of Jackson County found Mr. Dudley not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and remanded Mr. Dudley to the custody of the Department of Mental Health.
Mr. Dudley was confined as an inpatient at the St. Joseph State Hospital until March 20, 1990, when he was granted a conditional release by the Probate Court. The conditional release has been extended through the date of this appeal.
The statutory scheme in Missouri provides an avenue by which a criminal defendant who has been acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect and committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health can petition the court for an unconditional release pursuant to section 552.040. That section places the burden of proof on the committed person to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he "does not have, and in the reasonable future is not likely to have, a mental disease or defect, rendering him dangerous to the safety of himself or others." § 552.040(8). 2
The Missouri Supreme Court has held that it is constitutional to place the burden on the committed person to show entitlement to release, rather than on the state to prove the need for continued detention, where, as here, the person seeking release was committed following acquittal of a crime due to mental disease or defect. This is because an acquittal based on mental disease or defect carries with it an inference of continuing mental illness. It is up to the committed person to overcome that inference. State v. Tooley, 875 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Mo. banc 1994). 3
Section 552.040(6) provides that the trial court "shall consider the following factors in addition to any other relevant evidence" in determining whether a person such as Mr. Dudley has shown that he does not have and in the reasonable future is not likely to have a mental disease which renders him dangerous to himself or others:
(1) Whether or not the committed person presently has a mental disease or defect;
(2) The nature of the offenses for which the committed person was committed;
(3) The committed person's behavior while confined in a mental health facility;
(4) The elapsed time between the hearing and the last reported unlawful or dangerous act;
(5) Whether the person has had conditional releases without incident; and
(6) Whether the determination that the committed person is not dangerous to himself or others is dependent on the person's taking drugs, medicine or narcotics.
§ 552.040(6). The trial court should make a determination on the record that the committed person is still suffering from a mental disease or defect before ordering the person to remain institutionalized. Styles v. State, 838 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. banc 1992).
On November 3, 1993, the Superintendent of St. Joseph Hospital petitioned the Circuit Court of Jackson County for Mr. Dudley's unconditional release. A hearing on Mr. Dudley's petition for unconditional release was held on January 28, 1994. The psychiatrist who evaluated Mr. Dudley's progress during the conditional release, Donald Simmons, M.D., testified at the hearing. Dr. Simmons testified in favor of granting Mr. Dudley an unconditional release. He testified that Mr. Dudley suffers from chronic schizophrenia which is "ongoing and more or less permanent ..." However, Mr. Dudley's mental illness is controlled by medication in the form of a Prolixin injection every three weeks.
Dr. Simmons testified that it will be necessary for Mr. Dudley to continue with this medication in order to control his mental illness once he is unconditionally released. It was Dr. Simmons' opinion that Mr. Dudley would continue taking his medication on his own. He based this opinion on Mr. Dudley's success during the past three years in keeping his appointments and in taking his medication, stating as follows:
Q. Doctor, should the Court grant an unconditional release to Mr. Dudley here today, what would your opinion be based upon your three years of treating him whether he would continue with treatment and continue with his medication.
A. I'm fairly confident that he would do that from my standpoint. This is kind of what this hinges on really is whether he has the capacity to take responsibility for his own treatment because he is going to need it and if he cannot do that that would be a real bad prognosis, but I think he does have the insight and capacity to do that. I'm fairly confident that he would.
Because he believed that Mr. Dudley would continue with his medication, it was Dr. Simmons' conclusion that Mr. Dudley's mental illness did not render him a danger to the safety of himself or others. 4
The other evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing also supported the granting of an unconditional release. This evidence consisted of testimony that Mr. Dudley had been living in an independent apartment from the time of his conditional release on March 20, 1990, to the date of the hearing on January 28, 1994. Mr. Dudley obtained a job the day after his conditional release and was still working at that position as of the date of the hearing. During this time he was also very active in his church and was studying for his GED. Mr. Dudley also has the support of his family.
Mr. Dudley's evidence was uncontradicted by the state. The prosecutor stated on the record, "I'm willing to stipulate [Mr. Dudley] has been conforming and as the doctor said that he could probably do--that he is doing well and is taking the medicine." Counsel for the state further stated that "when I first looked at this based on his records, I didn't have a problem with the unconditional release until reading the statute more closely," at which time counsel concluded that the fact that Mr. Dudley would have to continue to take medication made him ineligible for release.
The judge stated at the hearing that he believed Mr. Dudley would continue taking his medication and that Mr. Dudley met the conditions for unconditional release "unless the fact that he is required to continue to take the medication is just a prohibition" against releasing him. The state argued that taking medication did constitute such a prohibition, and went so far as to say that taking medication made Mr. Dudley ineligible for release.
Following this discussion, the trial judge said that he did not believe that the Petitioner needed to present any additional evidence, because "I'm willing to release Mr. Dudley if I can do it under the statute." He asked for briefing by the parties on that issue, stating
On May 3, 1994, the judge issued its order stating:
There are no credibility issues present in the evidence. Mr. Dudley has a mental disease which is controlled by medication. As long as he takes the medication he is not a danger to himself or others.
The judge thus found that Mr. Dudley was not dangerous to himself or others as long as he took his medication. He nowhere found that Mr. Dudley was or was likely to be dangerous to himself or others. Indeed, the effect of the language he did use was that Mr. Dudley was not and was not likely to be dangerous to himself or others in the reasonable future, as the judge had previously found that Mr. Dudley was likely to continue to take his medication.
The judge nonetheless went on to state:
One of the factors the trial court must consider is: 'Whether the determination that the committed person is not dangerous to himself or others is dependent on the person's taking drugs, medicine or narcotics.' § 552.040.6(6), RSMo 1992 Cum.Supp.
The judge then concluded that the evidence failed to meet the minimum required for release under the statute. In support, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
84 Hawai'i 269, State v. Miller
...to make the ultimate decision regarding whether the evidence establishes the requisite conditions for release." State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (citing State v. Ross, 795 S.W.2d 648, 650 In the instant case, Dr. Gary Farkas, a court-appointed psychologist, testified ......
-
Marsh v. State, WD
...to the custody of the Department of Mental Health may file an application with the court for a conditional release. State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Mo.App. W.D.1995). Although § 552.040 does not specifically require the court to make a finding that the person still suffers from a ment......
-
State v. Weekly, WD 61086.
...case, there was evidence in that case that in the reasonable future the patient was not likely to be dangerous. In State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581 (Mo.App.1995), this court held that a patient suffering from schizophrenia that was completely controlled by medication was eligible for uncondi......
-
Grass v. State
...of mental defect or disease because "`the risks are immense if an error is made.'" Marsh, 942 S.W.2d at 390 (quoting State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581, 587 (Mo.App.1995)). The section 552.040.20(1) finding on the likelihood a person would commit another violent crime in the reasonable future ......