Gessner v. State, 166 A.3d 980

Mark I. Gessner was convicted of murder in 1995 and later accrued additional assault-related charges; in 2011 he was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity for 2010 offenses and committed to custody of the Commissioner of Health and Human Services.
Gessner was transferred to Riverview Psychiatric Center on February 20, 2016, and filed a petition for full or modified release on March 21, 2016.
At a July 2016 evidentiary hearing, the court found longstanding diagnoses (including schizophrenia and psychosis), a history of refusing medication, lack of insight into illness, and minimal participation in treatment while at Riverview.
The court concluded Riverview staff could not safely supervise Gessner in the community given his refusal of treatment and history of violence, and denied his petition under 15 M.R.S. § 104-A.
On appeal Gessner raised only a vagueness challenge to § 104-A, which he had not raised below; the court reviewed for obvious error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 15 M.R.S. § 104-A is unconstitutionally vague as applied	Gessner argued the statute’s standard for release is vague and did not give adequate notice of what is required for release	The State/nonmoving party defended the statute as sufficiently clear when applied to the individual circumstances and relying on the trial court’s findings	Court held § 104-A is not unconstitutionally vague as applied; Gessner did not show obvious error
Whether trial court committed obvious error by denying release without a vagueness ruling below	Gessner asserted the statute’s vagueness affected his substantial rights on appeal	The State argued Gessner failed to meet the burden to show constitutional infirmity and did not preserve the issue for trial	Court applied obvious-error review and found no plain error affecting substantial rights or the fairness of proceedings

Beal v. State, 151 A.3d 502 (2016) (interpreting release standard under § 104-A)
Green v. Comm’r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 750 A.2d 1265 (2000) (framework for commitment/release under mental health statutes)
State v. Sexton, 159 A.3d 335 (2017) (explaining obvious-error review elements)
State v. Preston, 26 A.3d 850 (2011) (procedural preservation and appellate review standards)
State v. Reckards, 113 A.3d 589 (2015) (testing vagueness challenges in individual circumstances)
Dorr v. Woodard, 140 A.3d 467 (2016) (placing burden on challenger to demonstrate statutory infirmity)

Judgment affirmed.