Beauchene v. State, 167 A.3d 569

In 1970 Donald Beauchene was found not guilty of murder by reason of mental disease or defect and committed to DHHS custody under 15 M.R.S. § 103; he remains committed.
Beauchene filed a petition under 15 M.R.S. § 104-A in 2016 seeking discharge or a modified treatment plan; a September 2016 hearing produced testimony from three mental-health professionals.
The trial court found Beauchene’s symptoms (consistent since 1970) indicate a personality disorder with antisocial/narcissistic features, persistent risk to others, history of escape, and criminal convictions in New York in 1980.
The court concluded his mental condition had not materially changed since 1970, that the jury verdict necessarily found a legal “mental disease or defect,” and denied the petition; Beauchene appealed.
Beauchene argued (1) the evidence compels a conclusion he does not suffer a legally cognizable mental disease or defect because his diagnosis is antisocial personality disorder; (2) § 104-A is unconstitutionally vague; and (3) his continued confinement violates due process.

Issue	Beauchene's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether evidence compels finding no "mental disease or defect"	His symptoms amount to antisocial personality disorder, which as a matter of law is not a mental disease or defect	Jury in 1970 found a mental disease/defect; current experts say his symptoms persist and meet the legal concept; court decides legal label	Court upheld finding he continues to suffer a mental disease or defect and did not compel contrary result
Vagueness of 15 M.R.S. § 104-A	Terms like “likelihood” and “injury” and undefined time frame render statute vague	Statute gives adequate notice; broad terms properly permit case-by-case judicial determination	Statute not unconstitutionally vague; no obvious error in application
Due process challenge to continued confinement	Continued confinement is not narrowly tailored; State could use involuntary commitment processes	State may confine those who remain mentally ill and dangerous; petitioner must meet § 104-A burden to obtain release	Due process claim fails because court found petitioner mentally ill and dangerous
Standard/burden of proof for release	(Implicit) petitioner must meet clear-and-convincing standard; challenges to application	State relies on statutory clear-and-convincing standard and factual findings	Court applied clear-and-convincing standard; petitioner failed to meet burden

Begin v. State, 153 A.3d 93 (Me. 2016) (articulates clear-and-convincing burden under § 104-A)
Beal v. State, 151 A.3d 502 (Me. 2016) (‘‘mental disease or defect’’ is a legal determination for courts)
Green v. Comm’r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 750 A.2d 1265 (Me. 2000) (State may confine mentally ill persons who are dangerous)
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) (commitment of acquittees lawful while they remain mentally ill and dangerous)
James v. State, 121 A.3d 1290 (Me. 2015) (clarifies that § 104-A does not require a change from time of verdict for relief)