State v. Long, 19 A.3d 1242

Calvin Long, an insanity acquittee, has been under the Connecticut board's jurisdiction since 1986 following a not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect verdict for assault in the second degree.
The state repeatedly petitioned to recommit Long under General Statutes § 17a-593 (c), with hearings resulting in renewed commitments of up to three years.
Long previously challenged § 17a-593 (c) on equal protection grounds; this court held that the legislature could rationally differentiate acquittees from civilly committed inmates, and reversed the trial court's dismissal.
On remand, Long filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing the same equal protection theory and contending that changed conditions or intermediate scrutiny should apply; Harris (2006) influenced the record but did not alter the governing framework.
The trial court denied Long’s motion to dismiss, continued his commitment for three years, and Long appealed again, asserting facial and as-applied challenges and different scrutiny levels.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that Long’s facial challenge is barred by res judicata and that his as-applied challenge is likewise precluded by the earlier decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does res judicata bar Long's facial equal protection challenge?	Long contends the prior decision controlled only review level, not the facial validity.	State argues the current claim relitigates the same theory and should be barred.	Yes, res judicata bars the facial challenge.
Is Long’s as-applied equal protection challenge precluded by prior ruling?	Long asserts as-applied challenges were open on remand due to Long's differences from civilly committed inmates.	State asserts the as-applied theory mirrors the facial theory and is barred for the same reasons.	Yes, as-applied challenge is also precluded.
What level of scrutiny applies to Long's equal protection claim on remand?	Long argues for intermediate or heightened scrutiny given changed conditions.	State maintains the prior rational basis framework remains controlling.	Rational basis review applies; the prior holding precludes a different scrutiny level on remand.
Did the trial court properly deny the motion to dismiss and continue Long’s commitment?	Long maintains the methodology and comparators were constitutionally defective.	State proves Long is mentally ill and dangerous and the commitment is warranted.	Yes, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss and continued commitment.

State v. Long, 268 Conn. 508 (2004) (upheld rational basis review for disparate recommitment procedures)
Fasulo v. Arafeh, 173 Conn. 473 (1977) (necessity of periodic judicial review for confinement)
State v. Metz, 230 Conn. 400 (1994) (burden of proof for recommitment; implied equal protection considerations)
State v. Harris, 277 Conn. 378 (2006) (clarified that board’s dangerousness standard is not constitutionally different from civil commitment)
State v. Lindo, 110 Conn. App. 418 (2008) (equal protection analysis controlling differences between schemes)
State v. Aillon, 189 Conn. 416 (1983) (criminal context for res judicata and related issues)
Connelly v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 394 (2001) (massive curtailment of liberty and due process considerations in confinement)