153 Conn.App. 266
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Anthony Dyous was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for a 1983 bus hijacking and committed to psychiatric custody; transferred to the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board).
- Repeated institutionalizations, medication refusal, escapes, violence, and intermittent temporary releases; prior 2010 recommitment order affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court in State v. Dyous (Dyous I).
- In April 2012 the state filed a second petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-593(c) seeking continued commitment because Dyous allegedly remained mentally ill and would be dangerous if discharged.
- At the 2013 hearing the state presented the board report and testimony; Dyous presented no evidence despite an opportunity to do so. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Dyous remained dangerous and extended commitment to March 18, 2018.
- Dyous appealed claiming (1) unequal treatment compared to mentally disordered prison inmates (equal protection) and (2) that his April 8, 2011 conviction for third-degree assault demonstrated sanity, undercutting the basis for continued commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dyous) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued commitment violated equal protection | Recommitment under § 17a-593(c) is tailored to protect society and withstands scrutiny; prior Dyous I upholds statute | Dyous argued unequal treatment versus mentally disordered inmates released from DOC; unequal protection and fairness concerns | Court: Claim inadequately preserved/record inadequate for Golding review; therefore not considered; Dyous I already upheld the statutory scheme |
| Whether 2011 conviction proves sanity and negates need for commitment | Continued commitment focuses on present dangerousness and mental illness; a criminal conviction without insanity defense does not negate mental illness or present dangerousness | Dyous argued conviction (assault in third degree) shows he was sane, removing rationale for commitment | Court: Conviction did not adjudicate mental state (no insanity defense asserted); conviction can be evidence of dangerousness and does not contradict the court’s finding of current mental illness and danger |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dyous, 307 Conn. 299 (Conn. 2012) (upheld § 17a-593(c) recommitment procedure against equal protection challenge)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (criminal conviction is strong evidence of dangerousness relevant to civil commitment)
- Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1962) (criminal conviction demonstrates risk to public peace)
- State v. Bigelow, 120 Conn. App. 632 (Conn. App. 2010) (competence and mental illness distinctions relevant to criminal proceedings)