State v. Seekins
Decision Date | 07 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 18467.,18467. |
Citation | 299 Conn. 141,8 A.3d 491 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Christopher SEEKINS. |
299 Conn. 141
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Christopher SEEKINS.
No. 18467.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued March 15, 2010.
Decided Dec. 7, 2010.
Richard C. Marquette, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Raheem L. Mullins, assistant state's attorney, with whom were Cynthia J. Palermo-Murchison, assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, David Shepack, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js.*
PALMER, J.
Under General Statutes § 54-56d (k)(2),1 a criminal defendant who has
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. On June 30, 2006, the defendant pleaded guilty to production or preparation of a controlled substance without a license in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 21a-246. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two years incarceration, execution suspended, and three years of probation. On or about September 18, 2007, during an unannounced visit to the defendant's home with the defendant's probation officer, officers from the Torrington police department discovered approximately 1.8 pounds of marijuana in the defendant's refrigerator,4 fifty
A pretrial hearing was held on September 3, 2008, at which time the state moved for a competency hearing pursuant to § 54-56d (c).7 At that time, the assistant state's attorney informed the trial court that, in addition to the charges pending in the present case, the defendant also had a charge of harassment in the second degree 8 pending in the judicial district of New Haven at Meriden. In the Meriden case, the trial court found the defendant incompetent to stand trial and committed him to the custody of Connecticut Valley Hospital, Whiting Forensic Division (Whiting), for restoration of competency.
On September 23, 2008, the trial court conducted a hearing to ascertain the results of the competency evaluation. Bruce Knox, a licensed clinical social worker and member of the clinical team that had evaluated
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Knox whether there were any health risks associated with psychotropic medication. Knox responded that "there's always some potential risk with any medication, but the treatment team at Whiting is familiar with the defendant. They've known him for many months, and I'm sure they would monitor any medication very closely, given [the defendant's] ... concerns about [the] matter." The trial court then asked Knox whether, when the defendant previously had been restored to competency, he had suffered any adverse side effects from the medication. Knox responded that, as far as he knew, the defendant had suffered no such side effects.
After Knox completed his testimony, the trial court found the defendant incompetent to stand trial. The court further found, however, that the defendant could be restored to competency within sixty days through
A second competency hearing was held on November 18, 2008, at which Susan McKinley, a licensed clinical social worker, testified. McKinley informed the court that she and a clinical team from Whiting recently had evaluated the defendant for competency to stand trial and had found him to be incompetent. McKinley testified
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman
...treatments this court previously has condoned because it is not designed to alter the defendant's mind or will. See State v. Seekins, 299 Conn. 141, 166–67, 8 A.3d 491 (2010) (allowing order of involuntary medication to render defendant competent to stand trial). Additionally, the state pre......
-
State v. Yoon Chul Shin, AC 40385
...seven; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.In this opinion the other judges concurred.1 See, e.g., State v. Seekins , 299 Conn. 141, 147–48, 8 A.3d 491 (2010) (defendant found incompetent to stand trial but restorable to competency).2 The defendant also alleges that the state has......
-
State v. Holden
...and the mind of the subject, it constitutes a deprivation of liberty in the most literal and fundamental sense." State v. Seekins, 299 Conn. 141, 154, 8 A.3d 491 (2010), citing Washington v. Harper, supra, at 237–38, 110 S.Ct. 1028 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). T......
-
State v. Lishan Wang
...quoting Sell v. United States, supra, 539 U.S. [at] 180–81 .” (Footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Seekins, 299 Conn. 141, 154–56, 8 A.3d 491 (2010). The court in Sell did not prescribe the standard of appellate review of the trial court's conclusions with respect to......