State of West Virginia v. Chip Melton Davidow, 15-0876

In 1996 Chip Melton Davidow was found not guilty of first-degree murder by reason of insanity and committed to a mental health facility for the statutory maximum period.
Davidow was placed in Massachusetts at Wild Acre (and later a Belmont successor) for approximately 18–20 years at his own expense, living in a staffed group home and participating in day programs; he remained medication-compliant and had no psychotic relapses in that time.
Wild Acre’s Lexington facility closed in 2014; the Raleigh County circuit court ordered Davidow returned to West Virginia and transferred him to Sharpe Hospital and then to Highland Hospital (secure units).
Davidow moved for transfer to Belmont (out-of-state) or otherwise to a less restrictive placement, arguing Belmont was the least restrictive, clinically appropriate setting.
The State (and the court) responded that West Virginia has in-state placement options and that any step-down requires progression through the state continuum; the circuit court denied transfer and emphasized public-safety concerns and administrative/jurisdictional issues.
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court failed to make required findings whether Davidow’s current placement was the least restrictive environment consistent with public protection and directing further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davidow was entitled to be placed at Belmont (out-of-state) as the "least restrictive" placement	Belmont is the successor to Wild Acre where Davidow thrived; he and his counsel argued he should be placed there and even offered to pay	State argued West Virginia has adequate in-state options and out‑of‑state placement is not required; court emphasized public-safety and jurisdictional concerns	Court rejected a categorical entitlement to Belmont; circuit court did not err in denying transfer to that specific facility absent showing no adequate in‑state alternative
Whether the circuit court made required findings that Davidow’s current placement (Highland) is the least restrictive environment consistent with public safety	Davidow argued the denial failed to address whether Highland is unnecessarily restrictive and did not analyze his current status on the least-restrictive continuum	State conceded remand appropriate for more specific findings but maintained in‑state options exist and stepdown requires demonstrated progress	Supreme Court reversed and remanded for factual findings and (if needed) further proceedings to determine whether Davidow’s current placement is the least restrictive consistent with public protection

Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Comm’n, 201 W. Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for disposition; clearly erroneous for facts; de novo for law)
State v. Catlett, 207 W. Va. 740, 536 S.E.2d 721 (1999) (trial court has broad discretion in disposition of those found not guilty by reason of insanity)
State v. Smith, 198 W. Va. 702, 482 S.E.2d 687 (1996) (commitment statute aims to treat mental illness and protect society, not to punish)
State v. Robertson, 230 W. Va. 548, 741 S.E.2d 106 (2013) (upholding out‑of‑state placement where no adequate in‑state facility exists)