![]() ![]() ![]() The court shall weigh the evidence and, if the court finds that such person has recovered his sanity and will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others, the court shall order such person unconditionally released from further confinement in said hospital. (e) Where any person has been confined in a hospital for the mentally ill pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, and the superintendent of such hospital certifies: (1) that such person has recovered his sanity (2) that, in the opinion of the superintendent, such person will not in the reasonable future be dangerous to himself or others and (3) in the opinion of the superintendent, the person is entitled to his unconditional release from the hospital, and such certificate is filed with the clerk of the court in which the person was tried, and a copy thereof served on the United States Attorney or the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, whichever office prosecuted the accused, such certificate shall be sufficient to authorize the court to order the unconditional release of the person so confined from further hospitalization at the expiration of 15 days from the time said certificate was filed and served as above but the court in its discretion may, or upon objection of the United States or the District of Columbia shall, after due notice, hold a hearing at which evidence as to the mental condition of the person so confined may be submitted, including the testimony of 1 or more psychiatrists from said hospital. (3) An appeal may be taken from an order entered upon paragraph (2) of this subsection to the court having jurisdiction to review final judgments of the court entering the order. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person confined is entitled to his release from custody, either conditional or unconditional, the court shall enter such order as may appear appropriate. ![]() The person confined shall have the burden of proof. Within 10 days from the date the hearing was begun, the court shall determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. (B) If the hearing is not waived, the court shall cause notice of the hearing to be served upon the person, his counsel, and the prosecuting attorney and hold the hearing. (ii) In the case of a person who is not eligible to have counsel appointed by the court, by assuring representation by retained counsel. ![]() (i) In the case of a person who is eligible to have counsel appointed by the court, by continuing any appointment of counsel made to represent such person in the prior criminal action or by appointing new counsel or At the conclusion of the criminal action referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the court shall provide such person with representation by counsel: (2) (A) A person confined pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection shall have a hearing, unless waived, within 50 days of his confinement to determine whether he is entitled to release from custody. (d) (1) If any person tried upon an indictment or information for an offense raises the defense of insanity and is acquitted solely on the ground that he was insane at the time of its commission, he shall be committed to a hospital for the mentally ill until such time as he is eligible for release pursuant to this subsection or subsection (e) of this section. (c) When any person tried upon an indictment or information for an offense, or tried in the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for an offense, is acquitted solely on the ground that he was insane at the time of its commission, that fact shall be set forth by the jury in their verdict. Acquittal by reason of insanity release after confinement expenses of confinement inconsistent statutes superseded escaped persons insanity defense motions for relief. Court further finds counsel was ineffective for failing to address the insanity plea, which had been entered by former counsel. Evidence was such as might provide a basis for finding insanity. ♡9: "…to find structural error, a court must (1) determine that a constitutional error has occurred, (2) conduct analysis under the presumption that the error is not structural, and (3) determine that the constitutional error has permeated the entire trial, rendering it unable to serve as a 'vehicle ' for determination of the defendant‘s guilt or innocence." Failure to bring insanity to the attention of the jury denied appellant his constitutional right to trial by jury. Defendant was found competent to stand trial, but such finding does not preclude a jury finding insanity. Plea was entered but apparently forgotten. 3d 713, 2008-Ohio-5191 – Failure to notify the jury that the defendant had entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and to instruct the jury on that plea constituted structural error. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |