121 A.3d 1290
Me.2015Background
- In 2006 Michael J. James, while serving a prison sentence, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect for assaulting an officer and was committed to DHHS custody at Riverview Psychiatric Center.
- James’s prison sentence was tolled during his commitment; upon DHHS discharge he would return to Department of Corrections custody to complete the sentence.
- On September 5, 2013, DHHS petitioned for James’s discharge from its custody. A contested hearing was held April 10, 2014, with testimony from multiple Riverview clinicians and independent forensic experts.
- The Superior Court concluded by clear and convincing evidence that James no longer suffers from a mental disease or defect that causes him to be dangerous, and ordered his discharge to the custody of the Department of Corrections.
- James appealed, arguing the court erred by discharging him without first finding a “substantial change” in the mental disease or defect that supported the original not-criminally-responsible verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petition for discharge under 15 M.R.S. § 104-A(1) requires proof of a "substantial change" in the specific mental disease or defect that led to the original NGRI verdict | James: discharge requires showing a substantial change in the particular mental disease/defect (relying on LaDew and Beauchene) | State/DHHS: §104-A(1) asks only whether the person currently presents danger because of a mental disease or defect; no separate change-in-condition requirement | Court: No such change-showing is required; the court must determine whether the person currently has a mental disease or defect making them dangerous — here the court found dangerousness was not due to mental disease, so discharge was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. State, 953 A.2d 1152 (Me. 2008) (prior appeal affirming commitment and framing discharge inquiry as whether dangerousness is due to mental disease)
- In re Beauchene, 951 A.2d 81 (Me. 2008) (interpreting discharge standards and earlier definitions of mental disease/defect)
- LaDew v. Comm’r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 532 A.2d 1051 (Me. 1987) (discussing release burden where statutory insanity standard changed)
- Green v. Comm’r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 750 A.2d 1265 (Me. 2000) (adopting Criminal Code definition of “mental disease or defect” for release proceedings)
- In re Fleming, 431 A.2d 616 (Me. 1981) (stating operative inquiry is whether petitioner is free of mental disease or defect)