State v. Tanner
2019 Ohio 1193
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1990 Raymond Tanner was found not guilty by reason of insanity for decapitating his wife and was committed; diagnosed initially with paranoid schizophrenia but later diagnoses varied (e.g., major depressive disorder with psychotic features, brief psychotic reaction, schizophreniform disorder, possible personality disorder).
- Tanner was placed on conditional release in 1996 and has been subject to biannual/two‑year reviews and progressively reduced supervision; last psychiatric medication was in 1991.
- In November 2017 the Department designee (Dr. Fridman) and the local forensic director (Dr. O'Donnell) each evaluated Tanner and concluded he no longer suffered from a severe mental illness and recommended termination of commitment.
- The State sought a continuance for an independent evaluation but did not obtain one; Tanner moved to terminate his commitment and a March 15, 2018 hearing was held where the two doctors testified and their reports were admitted.
- The trial court, applying R.C. 2945.401(E) factors and considering Tanner's history (including lack of insight, prior violent history, equivocal diagnoses, and epidemiological relapse risk), found by clear and convincing evidence that Tanner remains a mentally ill person subject to court order and continued conditional release with counseling every four months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tanner's commitment should be terminated under R.C. 2945.401 | Tanner: Uncontroverted expert reports show he is no longer mentally ill; termination required | State: Despite experts' recommendations, record and history show continued risk and lack of insight; burden on State to prove otherwise by clear and convincing evidence | Court denied termination; found clear and convincing evidence Tanner remains a mentally ill person subject to court order |
| Whether continued commitment violated Tanner’s due‑process rights | Tanner: Continued jurisdiction and supervision unlawfully deprive liberty given expert opinions favoring termination | State: Statutory review procedures were followed; totality of circumstances supports continued jurisdiction to protect public safety | Court held due‑process not violated; duration/nature of commitment reasonably related to purpose of confinement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fisher, 39 Ohio St.2d 71 (Ohio 1974) (recognizes due process protections for insanity acquittees and statutory scheme governing commitment)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (commitment duration must reasonably relate to its purpose)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1972) (limits on commitment when competency or dangerousness are at issue)
- Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1992) (acquittees may be held only while both mentally ill and dangerous)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Miller, 63 Ohio St.3d 99 (Ohio 1992) (importance of following statutory commitment procedures)
- In re Burton, 11 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1984) (totality of the circumstances and consideration of past history in commitment decisions)