State v. Edwards

• Docket Number: 22-K-41
• Decision Date: 25 May 2022
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JAMAAL EDWARDS
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
JAMAAL EDWARDS

No. 22-K-41

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit

May 25, 2022

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE SCOTT U.SCHLEGEL, DIVISION "D", NUMBER 13-4134

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Hans J. Liljeberg, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART; REMANDED

In this writ application, the State seeks review of the trial court's January 5, 2022 ruling, granting defendant's unconditional release from Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System ("state mental hospital"). For the following reasons, we deny this writ application in part and grant it in part for the limited purpose of reopening the contradictory hearing for the trial court to determine what, if any, restrictions should be placed upon defendant's release from the state mental hospital.

Facts and Procedural History

On December 5, 2013, defendant was charged by indictment with the second degree murder of Tracy Nguyen, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. On July 20, 2016, the trial court found defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to the state mental hospital. On December 16, 2021, the trial court held a hearing, pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 657, to consider the recommendation of 22-K-41

2

the Louisiana Office of Behavioral Health's forensic review panel that defendant be discharged from the state mental hospital because he does not have a mental illness.

At the hearing, Dr. Deonna Dodd testified that she is currently defendant's treating psychiatrist and that he has shown no evidence of a continued psychiatric illness during his hospitalization. Dr. Dodd stated that she diagnosed defendant with antisocial personality disorder, for which there is no treatment. She testified that during defendant's time at the hospital, he has had difficulty following the rules and has consistently demonstrated violent behavior with both patients and staff on many occasions. She noted that some staff members were significantly injured by defendant, including one person who suffered a broken jaw and hearing loss. Dr. Dodd described defendant as being inappropriate with and fixated on females. She said defendant "appears to be in control of his anger and aggressiveness and uses it at will in a calculated manner." Dr. Dodd testified that defendant "will use manipulation, criminal behavior, violence, to obtain whatever his goal is at that time."

Dr. Dodd further stated, "Our recommendations to the Court is [sic] that we would ask that the Court take into account is that, though we do believe [defendant] to be dangerous, he has proven himself to be a dangerous individual, we do not believe that he suffers from mental illness." Dr. Dodd recommended that defendant no longer be confined at the state mental hospital, because he does not have a significant, organic psychiatric illness. She stated that defendant's personality disorder is not recognized as a serious mental illness in the psychiatric community.

Dr. Shannon Sanders testified that she is a psychologist and was assigned to complete defendant's risk assessment as part of the forensic review panel. Dr. Sanders provided that defendant has multiple risk factors that increase his

3

likelihood of engaging in violent behavior. She agreed with Dr. Dodd that the risk factors were concerning, but stated that they had a "confliction" because defendant did not have a diagnosable mental illness that is treatable. Dr. Sanders testified that defendant's substance use is also a significant risk factor, noting that defendant acknowledged he was "under the influence" when he shot his fiancée, Tracy Nguyen. She stated that it was a "big concern" that defendant did not feel like he was addicted to any drug and that he did not see any real issue if he were to use drugs again. Dr. Sanders stated that defendant was "found to be at a moderate risk and that it could elevate to a higher risk if he were to be released directly into the community without any additional safeguards in place." Dr. Sanders suggested the following regarding safeguards:

Could be him, you know, having drug tests, routine drug screens, and the ones that could test for synthetic marijuana use, contact with like a probation parole-type officer or meeting with a mental health professional to ensure that he is handling the stress of just day-to-day life and reintegrating back into the community, if he has any relationship stress, things like that, employment, money that he has some additional person kind of checking in on him to make sure he is not faltering at all

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court requested briefs from the parties and set another hearing for January 5, 2022.

On December 29, 2021, the State filed its memorandum in opposition to defendant's discharge, in which it argued that defendant should continue to be confined, but acknowledged contrary law and jurisprudence, citing to Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992). The State asserted that if the court found that it was required to discharge defendant, then it should order him released with strict conditions "to ensure the public safety from this highly dangerous defendant."

On January 2, 2022, defendant filed his memorandum in support of his discharge from the state mental hospital. Defendant submitted that because he is

4

no longer mentally ill, Foucha and Louisiana law require that he be fully discharged, without any conditions. He alleged that La. C.Cr.P. art. 657 dictates that having a mental illness is a required condition for further detention and for placing any conditions or restrictions on his release.

At the hearing on January 5, 2022, the trial court ordered that defendant be discharged from the state mental hospital. The trial court then addressed whether it should place defendant on supervision, and stated:

Unfortunately, the Court does not find anything within the State statutes that has been drawn to address this situation All of the State laws under 654 et seq. and, specifically, 657 go on to contemplate that the defendant is not dangerous to self or others and that he-whoever "he" may be-has a mental health issues that can continue to be treated while under supervision. The State's laws do not contemplate when somebody has reached-has no mental illness but is still considered dangerous to others. This Court is left with no choice to unconditionally discharge him and hope that the State legislators address this issue in this coming session.

On that same date, the trial court signed a written judgment ordering defendant to be unconditionally discharged.^[1]

Law and Discussion

In this writ application, the State challenges the trial court's release of defendant from the state mental hospital, while also acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court's holding in Foucha, supra, is contrary to its position. Alternatively, the State argues that the trial court should have released defendant with strict conditions. The State asserts that the trial court erroneously interpreted the pertinent codal provisions as not allowing it to impose conditional release. It requests that this Court remand the matter for the trial court to make a determination of whether conditional release is warranted under a correct interpretation of the law.

5

Defendant responds that the trial judge correctly applied the Foucha precedent and did not err in ordering his unconditional release. He argues that Foucha, supra, prohibits his further confinement based on a finding of dangerousness alone and no mental illness. He argues that La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.1 permits a court to place conditions upon an insanity acquittee's release only if the court finds that the acquittee has a treatable mental illness. He contends that La. C.Cr.P. art. 657.2 further reinforces the premise that having a mental illness is a threshold requirement before a court imposes conditions upon an acquitted person's release.

In 1992, the United States Supreme Court, in a plurality decision, held in Foucha that the State of Louisiana could not indefinitely institutionalize an insanity acquittee until he could show he is not dangerous to himself and others, where he did not suffer from a mental illness. See Foucha, 504 U.S. 71, 112 S.Ct. at 1781. In that case, the United States Supreme Court found that the Louisiana statute allowing continued confinement of an insanity acquittee on the basis of his antisocial personality disorder, after a hospital review committee had reported no evidence of mental illness and recommended conditional discharge, violated due process. Id. In Foucha, like the present case, the defendant had been involved in several altercations at the hospital and the doctor stated that he could not certify that the defendant would not be a danger to himself or others. Foucha, 504 U.S. at 74-75, 112 S.Ct. at 1782-83.

In the present case, similar to Foucha, Dr. Dodd testified that although defendant has antisocial personality disorder and a continued potential for violence, he has no evidence of mental illness. As a result, she recommended that he be released from the hospital. Dr. Sanders agreed with this recommendation and suggested that defendant be released with safeguards in place.

6

Based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Foucha, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that defendant may no longer be confined to the state mental hospital. Although there was testimony that defendant has been violent at the hospital and could be violent again in the future, both doctors testified that defendant does not currently have a mental illness. We acknowledge that Foucha controls and requires that defendant be released from custody. Accordingly, we deny the...