State v. Damone, 2014 WL 411266

Acquittee Reginald Damone has been committed to the Psychiatric Security Review Board since 1985 after an insanity acquittal on multiple violent offenses; original maximum term expired in 2010 but the state filed a petition under §17a-593(c) to extend for up to two years beyond the maximum term due to continuing psychiatric disability and risk.
Board history shows a long course of inpatient and community-based treatment with progressive supervision, culminating in periods of full conditional release and gradually diminishing supervision.
In 2009 the state filed the petition for continued commitment; the court held a two-day hearing in 2011 with reports from the board and expert psychiatrists, including Grayson (board’s expert) and Zeman (defense expert).
The court found the acquittee remains clinically stable only in a controlled environment; it concluded by clear and convincing evidence that, if discharged from supervision, he would be at great risk of mental relapse and thus dangerous.
The trial court granted the State’s petition, extending the acquittee’s commitment for up to two years, while recommending a transitional plan toward Hartford community-based conditional release.
On appeal, the acquittee contends the state failed to prove current mental illness and dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, and that the court misapplied standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court used the proper mental illness standard.	Damone argues the standard requires ‘may, with reasonable medical probability, become active.’	State contends the court properly found current mental illness and risk, even if not phrased in exact words.	Yes; the court’s finding of current mental illness satisfied the statutory/regulatory standard.
Whether the court correctly found a risk of imminent physical injury if discharged.	Damone asserts no imminent danger if released; risk is speculative.	State contends ongoing psychiatric disability and treatment failures show danger if released.	Yes; the court properly concluded danger exists if discharged, supported by evidence.
Whether the evidence supports extending the commitment for two years.	Damone argues the evidence does not show current danger.	State argues clear and convincing evidence shows ongoing risk without board supervision.	Yes; the evidence supports a two-year extension.

Payne v. Fairfield Hills Hospital, 215 Conn. 675 (1990) (confinement rests on continuing illness and dangerousness; not punishment for crime)
State v. Maskiell, 100 Conn. App. 507 (2007) (clear and convincing standard governs continued commitment)
State v. Warren, 169 Conn. 207 (1975) (conclusions tested by findings; societal safety considerations in dangerousness)
State v. Putnoki, 200 Conn. 208 (1986) (dangerousness determined by balancing rights and public safety; legal decision of court)
State v. March, 265 Conn. 697 (2003) (imminent risk standard for dangerousness; court weighs psychiatric and safety factors)
Struckman v. Burns, 205 Conn. 542 (1987) (talismanic words not required for expert opinion to sustain necessary finding)
Macchietto v. Keggi, 103 Conn. App. 769 (2007) (no mandatory use of magic words; qualitative reasoning acceptable)
State v. Harris, 277 Conn. 378 (2006) (definition of imminent danger; standard quoted by court)