Mark I. Gessner v. State of Maine
2017 ME 139
| Me. | 2017Background
- Mark I. Gessner was convicted of murder (1995) and accrued additional assault-related charges while imprisoned; in 2011 he was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity for 2010 charges and committed to the Commissioner of Health and Human Services.
- Transferred to Riverview Psychiatric Center on February 20, 2016; he petitioned for full or modified release on March 21, 2016.
- Gessner has longstanding diagnoses (since 1993) including schizophrenia, psychosis, depression with psychotic features, auditory hallucinations, and delusional ideation.
- Evidence at the July 2016 hearing showed refusal of medication, lack of participation in recommended counseling, denial of mental illness, and volatile, aggressive behavior while at Riverview and in prison.
- The Superior Court denied release, finding Gessner had not proved it was highly probable he could be released without posing a risk of injury to himself or others under 15 M.R.S. § 104‑A.
- Gessner appealed soley on the ground that § 104‑A is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed for obvious error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15 M.R.S. § 104‑A is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Gessner: statutory standard is vague and did not give adequate notice of requisites for release | State: statute provides sufficiently clear standards to assess risk of injury from mental disease or defect; trial court applied it to facts | Court: statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; affirmed denial of release |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. State, 151 A.3d 502 (Me. 2016) (interpreting statutory release standards under Maine law)
- Reckards v. State, 113 A.3d 589 (Me. 2015) (vagueness challenge evaluated in the context of the individual case)
- Green v. Comm’r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 750 A.2d 1265 (Me. 2000) (framework for commitment/release review)
- Dorr v. Woodard, 140 A.3d 467 (Me. 2016) (placing burden on challenger to demonstrate statutory infirmity)
- Preston, 26 A.3d 850 (Me. 2011) (standard for appellate review when issue not preserved)