PARSONS v. DISTRICT COURT OF PUSHMATAHA COUNTY
2017 OK 97
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Robert Parsons was charged with first-degree murder but pled NGRI; the trial court adjudicated him not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered psychiatric evaluation and possible commitment under 22 O.S. § 1161.
- After statutory evaluations, Parsons was committed to the Oklahoma Forensic Center (OFC) for treatment; treating clinicians found bipolar disorder in remission and a low risk of violence but identified past medication noncompliance as a risk factor.
- The Forensic Review Board (FRB) recommended weekly supervised off‑campus therapeutic visits at a community program (Grand Lake Mental Health Center) as part of Parsons’ graduated treatment plan.
- The Pushmataha County District Attorney filed timely objections to the FRB recommendation; hearings were held but the State presented no contrary evidence at either hearing.
- The trial court sustained the State’s objection twice without addressing the statutory § 1161(F)(3)(b) requirements (necessity for treatment and the nature/extent of visits) or assigning the burden of proof.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction, held the dispute was civil (not criminal) in nature, and reversed the trial court’s order denying therapeutic visits, remanding for a new hearing consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate jurisdiction lies with OK Sup. Ct. or OCCA for §1161(F) therapeutic-visit disputes | Parsons: post-acquittal commitment/treatment is civil; review by OK Sup. Ct. | State: §1161 is in Criminal Procedure (Title 22); OCCA should have jurisdiction | Court: matter is civil in nature; Supreme Court has jurisdiction |
| Who bears the burden of proof at a §1161(F)(3)(b) hearing after the DA objects | Parsons: burden should be on the objecting party (State) to prove visits are unnecessary/inappropriate | State: Parsons (the person seeking visits) should bear burden because he has superior access to evidence | Court: State (objector) must support its objection by a preponderance of evidence |
| Whether the trial court complied with §1161(F)(3)(b) by addressing necessity and scope of visits | Parsons: trial court failed to make the required findings on necessity and nature/extent | State: sustained objection broadly, treating Parsons as dangerous without addressing statutory factors | Court: trial court erred by not addressing statutory factors and by sustaining objection absent State evidence |
| Whether sustaining the State's objection was supported by the record | Parsons: no evidence was offered by State; FRB and clinicians supported visits | State: asserted general objection but produced no evidence at hearings | Court: sustaining objection was erroneous; remand for new hearing following statutory requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) (insanity acquittees cannot be confined as punishment; confinement must be based on mental illness and dangerousness)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983) (confinement of insanity acquittee rests on continuing illness and dangerousness, not punishment)
- State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 786 P.2d 82 (Okla. 1990) (Supreme Court resolves conflicts between appellate courts over jurisdiction)
- Dutton v. City of Midwest City, 353 P.3d 532 (Okla. 2015) (determine subject-matter by examining substantive nature of claims to classify civil vs. criminal)
- Miller v. State, 751 P.2d 733 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) (competency inquiries are integral to pending criminal prosecution)
- McKellips v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 741 P.2d 467 (Okla. 1987) (preponderance is proper civil burden standard for certain judicial relief)