Allmon-Lipscomb v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 301

In 1995 Qiana Allmon-Lipscomb (age 16 then) was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect for aggravated assault, terroristic threatening, and endangering a minor and committed to DHS for treatment.
Over 17 years Lipscomb was repeatedly conditionally released and had her release revoked multiple times; the most recent conditional release was entered September 5, 2012 and modified August 31, 2015.
The August 31, 2015 modification required compliance with prescribed medication and treatment, curfew, 24-hour one-to-one nursing supervision, and that Lipscomb and her one-to-one staff “treat each other with dignity and respect at all times.”
On December 4, 2015 the State moved to revoke her conditional release based on incidents in November 2015: Lipscomb threatened to kill a nurse (Sonya Davis) and her boyfriend with a knife, threatened to beat Davis, cursed at and pushed her four-year-old daughter, and otherwise acted violently and noncompliantly.
At the revocation hearing, psychiatrists and nurses testified Lipscomb was noncompliant with meds, exhibiting escalatory and manic/antisocial behavior, had a history of violence, posed a moderate risk of future violence, and required a more structured setting.
The circuit court found Lipscomb violated multiple conditions (threats/assault and noncompliance with treatment/medication) and revoked her conditional release; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether threats to and assault of one-to-one nurse violated the specific conditions of conditional release	Lipscomb: no general requirement to be "law-abiding"; the "dignity and respect" clause is not a narrowly tailored prohibition on violent threats so cannot support revocation	State: the order specifically required treating one-to-one staff with dignity and respect; threatening/assaulting the nurse violates that condition	Court: affirmed — threats/assault on the one-to-one nurse violated the release condition and supported revocation
Whether noncompliance with medication/treatment supported revocation	Lipscomb: (implied) dispute of sufficiency or relevance of evidence	State: Drs. and staff testified Lipscomb refused meds, was noncompliant, medically unstable, and required more structured care	Court: affirmed — substantial evidence showed medication/treatment noncompliance supporting revocation

No officially reported authorities with Bluebook reporter citations are relied on in the opinion (the opinion cites Ark. Code § 5-2-316 and an unpublished/uncited appellate decision).