Hawkes v. State
70 A.3d 308
Md.2013Background
- Hawkes was found not criminally responsible for two first-degree murders and committed to Perkins under MD Crim. Proc. Art. §3-112.
- In 2009 Hawkes sought conditional release under §3-114(c) with the State contesting eligibility due to risk of violence.
- ALJ heard witnesses; Hawkes’s treating physicians opined release with conditions would not create danger.
- The State’s expert testified Hawkes would be a danger unless additional observation or changes occurred.
- The ALJ concluded Hawkes was not dangerous and recommended release subject to sixteen conditions, including Alliance, Inc. housing and a detailed treatment plan.
- The Circuit Court vacated the ALJ’s finding, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, citing the presence of some risk in risk assessments and noting Alliance’s withdrawal posed issues; mootness arguments were addressed but remanded for housing considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 3-114(c) requires considering release conditions when assessing danger. | Hawkes argued danger must be evaluated with conditions, not without. | State contended danger must be assessed independently of proposed conditions. | Yes; conditions must be accounted for in determining eligibility. |
| Whether conditional release is appropriate when risk assessments show some danger but conditions may mitigate. | Hawkes relies on condition-based treatment to render release appropriate. | State argues any remaining risk defeats eligibility. | Eligible for conditional release if conditions can mitigate risk. |
| Mootness and remedial remand: should we address substitute housing/therapy providers given Alliance withdrawal? | Remand to test substitute provider meeting conditions. | Remand unnecessary or must address full issue of eligibility. | Remand limited to housing/therapy feasibility; issues not moot as remand can fashion compliance. |
| Whether the Court should reverse and remand to allow evaluation of current mental state on remand. | Allow updated mental-state evidence on remand. | Evidence beyond 2009 is unnecessary. | Court may remand for limited consideration of current condition if feasible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bergstein v. State, 322 Md. 506 (Md. 1991) (conditional release as part of continuing treatment; no total elimination of risk required)
- O'Connor v. Donaldson, 401 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1975) (constitutional limits on confinement; continuing need for treatment if dangerous)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1972) (dangerousness standard for commitment and treatment timelines)
- State v. Ray, 429 Md. 566 (Md. 2012) (statutory interpretation ensuring no surplusage; distinction between discharge and conditional release)
- Hough v. United States, 271 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (conditioning release under supervision; not indefinite confinement)