State v. Warren

• Decision Date: 22 July 1975
• Citation: 169 Conn. 207,363 A.2d 91
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. William J. WARREN.

Page 91

363 A.2d 91

169 Conn. 207

STATE of Connecticut v. William J. WARREN.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

July 22, 1975.

John R. Williams, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).

Ernest J. Diette, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Arnold Markle, State's Atty., and John R. Redway, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and COTTER, LOISELLE, LONGO and BARBER, JJ. HOUSE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant, William J. Warren, from a judgment of the Superior Court ordering his confinement in the Connecticut Valley Hospital at Middletown pursuant to § 53a-47 of the General Statutes.

Section 53a-47 is a lengthy statute providing the procedure to be followed for the confinement, examination and release of a person acquitted of an offense on the grounds of mental disease or defect. Very briefly summarized insofar as it affects the present case, the statute provides that in cases of acquittal of an accused on such grounds the court shall order such person to be confined in a state hospital for mental illness for a reasonable time not to exceed ninety days for an examination to determine his mental condition, that within sixty days of the confinement the superintendent of the hospital and the retained psychiatrist, if any, shall file reports with the court setting forth their findings and conclusions 'as to whether such person is mentally ill to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or other.' It further provides that upon receipt of such reports the court shall schedule a hearing and if it determines that a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing establishes that the person is mentally ill to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, the court shall confine the person to a suitable hospital or other treatment facility. The confinement, if ordered, shall continue until the person is no longer mentally ill to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of confinement except in the absence of specified circumstances shall not exceed a maximum term fixed by the court, which maximum term shall not exceed the maximum sentence which could have been imposed if the person had been convicted of the offense, and where the offense is a class A felony the maximum term shall be twenty-five years.

After being indicted by a grand jury for the crime of murder in the first degree the defendant was tried by a jury which returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court ordered the defendant confined in the Connecticut Valley Hospital for an examination to determine his mental condition, pursuant to the provisions of § 53a-47(a)(1) of the General Statutes. Dr. Patrick A. Lee, a psychiatrist and unit chief of Battell Hall at the hospital, was assigned pursuant to § 53a-47 to file a report on the defendant. In preparation for that report, Dr. Lee spoke with the defendant at the hospital several times; he also conferred with his staff and reviewed their records as to their observations of the defendant. Dr. Lee discussed with the defendant the nature of the criminal case against him and the defendant related to the doctor the facts surrounding the incident and told the doctor about his own background as well.

The finding of the court is that since the time of his hospitalization the defendant had been receiving one of the major tranquilizing antipsychotic drugs. This drug was administered because of information Dr. Lee obtained from the Whiting Forensic Institute that the attitude and behavior of the defendant had changed considerably as a result of this medication. This information showed that after medication was given the defendant's tendency to violence and psychopathis behavior was markedly decreased. It was Dr. Lee's opinion that without the medication the defendant could revert back to the hostility, the failure to get along with people and the outbursts of rage which he had exhibited while under observation at the Whiting Forensic Institute. Further, it was Dr. Lee's opinion that if the defendant were released from the hospital and he failed to take the medicine prescribed for him, he would constitute a danger to himself and others. Dr. Lee's report with regard to his examination of the defendant was entered into evidence as state's exhibit A. In the report dated May 24, 1974, Dr. Lee stated: 'It is my opinion at this time, based on the examination of all available records and personal interviews with Mr. Warrent, that he would benefit from a further period of hospitalization.' The court found that according to studies of the Veterans Administration Hospital, mentally ill patients released on medication to control their illness frequently have failed to take their medication. These studies show that almost 50 percent of the admissions to those hospitals were due to the failure of patients to realize the need to continue taking medication for an indefinite period of time.

The court concluded that the defendant was mentally ill to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself and others, that there was a strong possibility that the defendant, if released, might not continue use of the antipsychotic medication without which he is a danger to himself or others, and that there is no certain means of controlling the taking of his medication once he is released from the mental institution. It rendered judgment that the defendant be confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital 'until he is no longer mentally ill to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, but in no event for longer than a maximum term of a period not to exceed 25 years, subject, however, to possible further confinement.' It is from this judgment that the defendant took the present appeal.

The defendant has assigned error to certain of the court's findings as being unsupported by the evidence. Specifically, these findings are: that the defendant, if released, would constitute a danger to himself or others; that the defendant's condition is not eliminated but is only controlled by medication and that the medication does not affect the cause of his mental problems, only the symptoms; and that once released from a mental institution, there is no way in which authorities can control whether the defendant will faithfully and constantly take his medicine. The state called the only witness at the hearing, Dr. Patrick A. Lee, the examining psychiatrist. The appendix to the defendant's brief contains a copy of the transcript of Dr. Lee's testimony and a written report submitted by him. We have examined this evidence and conclude that the findings attacked by the defendant either find direct support in the evidence adduced at the hearing or are reasonable and logical inferences drawn by the trial court and are properly includable in the court's finding. Freccia v. Martin, 163 Conn. 160, 162 A.2d 280; Dappiello v. Haselman, 154 Conn. 490, 492, 227 A.2d 79.

The defendant next claims error in the following ruling made by the trial court: 'The defendant is ordered confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital until such time as he is no longer mentally ill, to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of his confinement shall not exceed twenty-five years, all in conformity with § 53a-47 of the Connecticut General Statutes.' The basis of the defendant's claim is that such a ruling is not supported by the facts of the case and that the proof offered by the state did not meet the burden of proof required by § 53a-47. ¹

With respect to the preponderance of the evidence test, we have stated that it means simply that 'the evidence must when considered fairly and impartially, induce a reasonable belief that the fact in issue is true.' Conley v. Board of Education, 143 Conn. 488, 497, 123 A.2d 747, 752; Beckwith v. Stratford, 129 Conn. 506, 507, 29 A.2d 775; Darrow v. Fleischner, 117 Conn. 518, 520, 169 A. 197. After a review of the evidence as printed in the appendix to the defendant's brief, we conclude that the facts found by the court are amply supported by the evidence in the case and established by a preponderance of the evidence.

The defendant has specifically assigned error to the following conclusions reached by the court: that the defendant is mentally ill to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others; that there is no certain means of controlling the taking of his medication once he is released from a mental institution; that medication when properly taken controls the symptoms of the defendant's illness but does not eliminate its...