Conditional release for NGI acquittees

State v. Beaver, No. 91112-6, 2015 WL 5455821 (Wash. Sept. 17, 2015)

Revoking an insanity acquittee's conditional release without a judicial finding that the acquittee currently suffers from a mental illness does not violate substantive or procedural due process

Background: Ricky Beaver was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of residential burglary in 2005, and the court committed him. Beaver petitioned for and was granted conditional release in 2007, but violated the terms of his conditional release in 2011 by using cocaine, drinking alcohol and driving a motor vehicle, and being charged with driving under the influence. Beaver appealed, arguing that due process required a finding of current mental illness before the court could revoke his conditional release. While his appeal was pending, he was granted final discharge, mooting his appeal, but the Court still reviewed the merits of the case.

Holdings: Sitting en banc, the Supreme Court of Washington held first that, though moot, the case presented issues of continuing and substantial public interest such that resolution of the merits was beneficial. Second, the Court held that revoking an insanity acquittee's conditional release without a judicial finding that the acquittee currently suffers from a mental illness does not violate substantive or procedural due process.

Notable Point: Regarding substantive due process, the Court wrote that an acquittee’s insanity was presumed to continue throughout conditional release until proven otherwise, and that acquittees had opportunities to prove lack of suffering from mental defect and to petition for final discharge. Regarding procedural due process, the Court wrote that, although the private interest in liberty or freedom from state constraint was substantial, revocation of acquittee's conditional release implicated a conditional liberty interest, and that the procedures to revoke an acquittee's conditional release provided protections against erroneous deprivation of liberty. Additionally, the Court found that the government had a strong interest in protection of public safety by detaining mentally unstable individuals who presented a threat to society.

Found in DMHL Volume 34 Issue 3