Matter of David B., 97 N.Y.2d 267 (2002)

To retain an insanity acquittee in a non-secure psychiatric facility, the State must demonstrate both mental illness requiring inpatient care and the individual’s inability to understand the need for such care, satisfying the constitutional requirement of dangerousness.

Summary

This case clarifies the standard for retaining individuals acquitted by reason of insanity in non-secure psychiatric facilities in New York. The Court of Appeals held that continued retention requires a showing of both mental illness necessitating inpatient care and the individual’s lack of understanding of their need for such care. This standard satisfies due process concerns by ensuring that only individuals who require inpatient care and lack the judgment to seek it themselves are involuntarily confined. The Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, finding that they may not have adequately considered the element of dangerousness and remanded for further proceedings.

Facts

David B. stabbed his brother in 1970 and was subsequently found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. He was initially held in a secure facility before being transferred to a non-secure facility in 1977. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and has a history of drug use, unexcused absences, and refusal to take prescribed medications. He sometimes denies suffering from a mental illness. Richard S. had been institutionalized after being found not guilty by reason of mental defect for stabbing a young man. He also had a prior manslaughter conviction for a similar crime. He was later transferred to a non-secure facility, but after possessing violent pornographic materials, he was returned to a secure facility.

Procedural History

In Matter of David B., the Supreme Court ordered continued confinement in a non-secure facility, focusing on mental illness without a showing of current dangerousness. The Appellate Division affirmed. In Matter of Richard S., the Supreme Court found that he should be afforded an opportunity to live in a less secure environment. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that he should be retained in a non-secure facility because he still suffers from a mental illness.

Issue(s)

Whether continued retention in a non-secure facility based solely on a finding of