Foucha v. Louisiana
| Foucha v. Louisiana | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 4, 1991 Decided May 18, 1992 |
|
| Full case name | Terry Foucha v. State of Louisiana |
| Docket nos. | 90-5844 |
| Citations | 504 U.S. 71 (more) |
| Prior history | Petitioner's writ denied in State Court of Appeals, denial affirmed in State Supreme Court |
| Holding | |
| Potential dangerousness is not a justification to commit a person found not guilty by reason of insanity if no mental illness is present. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White (Parts I, II), joined by O'Connor, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter |
| Plurality | White (Part III), joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Souter |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court addressed the criteria for the continued commitment of an individual who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The individual remained involuntarily confined on the justification that he was potentially dangerous even though he no longer suffered from the mental illness that served as a basis for his original commitment.
Petitioner Terry Foucha was charged with aggravated burglary and illegal discharge of a firearm. He burglarized a home after the occupants fled and discharged a firearm in the direction of a law enforcement officer. Initially he was evaluated as incompetent to proceed to trial because he was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. When he later was evaluated as competent, he was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was committed to East Feliciana State Hospital (La Maximum Secure) on the grounds that he had a mental illness and was dangerous.
Under Louisiana law, a criminal defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a psychiatric hospital will remain there until the hospital review committee recommends that he be released. If the review committee recommends release, then the trial court must hold a hearing to determine whether he is dangerous to himself or others. If he is found to be dangerous, he may be returned to the hospital whether or not he is currently mentally ill. The committee met and stated that it could not guarantee that Foucha would not be a danger to himself or others.
Therefore, the state court ordered petitioner Foucha to return to the mental institution to which he had been committed, ruling that he was dangerous. The decision was based on a doctor's testimony that, although Foucha had recovered from the drug induced psychosis for which he was committed, he continued to be diagnosed as having an antisocial personality, a condition that is not a mental illness and is not considered treatable. Foucha had been involved in several fights within the facility which doctors felt might indicate he might pose a danger if released. The court stated the burden of proof rested on Foucha to prove that he was not a danger to himself or others.
...
Wikipedia