|
He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service hit lists..." ~~~~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DANIEL GORDON PLATT, Appellant. No. 68750-1 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 143 Wn.2d 242; 19 P.3d 412; 2001 Wash. LEXIS 253 October 17, 2000, Oral Argument March 15, 2001, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Order Changing Opinion June 15, 2001. Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 6287. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; 94-1-00044-1. Honorable Kathryn E. Trumbull, Judge. DISPOSITION: Affirmed the order denying Platt's petition for conditional release. HEADNOTES: [1] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Hearing -- Purpose. The purpose of the hearing required by RCW 10.77.150(2) on a petition for conditional release of a person committed to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane is to determine whether or not the person may be released conditionally without substantial danger to other persons and whether there is a substantial likelihood that the person will commit criminal acts that would jeopardize public safety or security. [2] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Presumption of Continued Insanity. When a person confined to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane petitions for conditional release and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make a favorable recommendation on the petition, it is presumed that the person's insanity is continuing. [3] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Burden of Proof. When a person confined to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane petitions for conditional release from confinement and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make a favorable recommendation on the petition, the person has the burden of proving that he or she is fit for conditional release to a community setting. The burden is met by showing that the person would not present a substantial risk to others and is not substantially likely to commit further criminal acts if released into the community. [4] Appeal -- Findings of Fact -- Review -- Substantial Evidence -- In General. A trial court's findings of fact will be upheld on review if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. COUNSEL: For Petitioner(s): Jason B. Saunders, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, WA. For Respondent(s): Seth A. Fine, Snohomish Co. Prosecutor's Office, Everett, WA. Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Criminal D: Suzanne L. Elliott, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA. JUDGES: Authored by Philip A. Talmadge. Concurring: Richard P. Guy, Charles Z. Smith, Barbara A. Madsen, Faith E Ireland. Dissenting: Richard B. Sanders, Gerry L. Alexander, Charles W. Johnson. Written Dissent by Sanders, J. OPINIONBY: Philip A. Talmadge OPINION: [**412] [*243] En Banc TALMADGE, J. n1 - We must decide in this case who bears the burden of proof at a hearing under RCW 10.77.150 on the conditional release of an individual found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity and committed to a state hospital for treatment. Based on the language of RCW 10.77.150 and RCW 10.77.200, we hold the individual committed to the state hospital bears the burden of proving he [***2] or she is a fit subject for conditional release to a community setting. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n1 Justice Talmadge is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Const. art. IV, 2(a) (amend. 38). - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**413] [*244] ISSUE Under RCW 10.77.150, who bears the burden of proof when an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state hospital seeks conditional release? FACTS During the night of December 13, 1993, Daniel Platt attempted to elude a pursuing police car. Following a high-speed chase at speeds of up to 80 miles per hour on Everett streets, during the course of which he ran several red lights and stop signs, Platt was caught by the police. He was combative and resisted arrest; he asked the police to call the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He claimed he was bleeding. He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service hit lists and he had fled from the officers because he believed they [***3] were agents sent to kill him. The State charged Platt with attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, a felony under RCW 46.61.024. Following a Western State Hospital evaluation, the parties stipulated to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court found Platt not guilty by reason of insanity in August 1994 and placed him on conditional release, requiring him to undergo mental health treatment, take prescribed medications, and report to the Department of Corrections. Platt promptly violated the terms of the conditional release by failing to continue treatment, sending threatening letters, and making threatening phone calls. He returned to Western State Hospital where he spent much of 1995. Platt was again conditionally released in December 1995 and resumed working as a pharmacist, his chosen profession. n2 In January 1996, the State petitioned the trial court [*245] to issue a bench warrant for Platt's arrest, alleging he had failed to take his medications and he was delusional. Platt made threats involving firearms to his family, neighbors, and public officials and implied he would take his own life. He specifically referenced possession [***4] of an "Uzi" or AK-47. The threats prompted people to secure no-contact orders against Platt. Platt asserted he was hiding in a government witness relocation program and his deceased wife was still alive. The trial court modified Platt's conditions of release in January 1996, but did not issue a bench warrant for his detention. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n2 Throughout much of the period of his intermittent conditional releases, Platt worked as a pharmacist generating complaints about poor professional performance or odd behavior. Platt apparently is no longer licensed as a pharmacist by the State of Washington. - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - In December 1996, Platt was working as a pharmacist when his employer received complaints he was making mistakes in filling and labeling prescriptions. In December 1996, Platt met with an investigator from the Board of Pharmacy. During the interview he to
|
| |
| |
HEY- CIA,FBI, NSA- "learn" a MORE with their "experiments " by using an infinite variety of subjects(victims) including victimizing real schizophrenics.
"He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service hit lists..." ~~~~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. DANIEL GORDON PLATT, Appellant. No. 68750-1 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 143 Wn.2d 242; 19 P.3d 412; 2001 Wash. LEXIS 253 October 17, 2000, Oral Argument March 15, 2001, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Order Changing Opinion June 15, 2001. Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 6287. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; 94-1-00044-1. Honorable Kathryn E. Trumbull, Judge. DISPOSITION: Affirmed the order denying Platt's petition for conditional release. HEADNOTES: [1] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Hearing -- Purpose. The purpose of the hearing required by RCW 10.77.150(2) on a petition for conditional release of a person committed to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane is to determine whether or not the person may be released conditionally without substantial danger to other persons and whether there is a substantial likelihood that the person will commit criminal acts that would jeopardize public safety or security. [2] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Presumption of Continued Insanity. When a person confined to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane petitions for conditional release and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make a favorable recommendation on the petition, it is presumed that the person's insanity is continuing. [3] Criminal Law -- Insanity -- Confinement -- Release From Confinement -- Conditional Release -- Burden of Proof. When a person confined to a state mental hospital under chapter 10.77 RCW as criminally insane petitions for conditional release from confinement and the Department of Social and Health Services does not make a favorable recommendation on the petition, the person has the burden of proving that he or she is fit for conditional release to a community setting. The burden is met by showing that the person would not present a substantial risk to others and is not substantially likely to commit further criminal acts if released into the community. [4] Appeal -- Findings of Fact -- Review -- Substantial Evidence -- In General. A trial court's findings of fact will be upheld on review if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. COUNSEL: For Petitioner(s): Jason B. Saunders, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, WA. For Respondent(s): Seth A. Fine, Snohomish Co. Prosecutor's Office, Everett, WA. Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Criminal D: Suzanne L. Elliott, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA. JUDGES: Authored by Philip A. Talmadge. Concurring: Richard P. Guy, Charles Z. Smith, Barbara A. Madsen, Faith E Ireland. Dissenting: Richard B. Sanders, Gerry L. Alexander, Charles W. Johnson. Written Dissent by Sanders, J. OPINIONBY: Philip A. Talmadge OPINION: [**412] [*243] En Banc TALMADGE, J. n1 - We must decide in this case who bears the burden of proof at a hearing under RCW 10.77.150 on the conditional release of an individual found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity and committed to a state hospital for treatment. Based on the language of RCW 10.77.150 and RCW 10.77.200, we hold the individual committed to the state hospital bears the burden of proving he [***2] or she is a fit subject for conditional release to a community setting. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n1 Justice Talmadge is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Const. art. IV, 2(a) (amend. 38). - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**413] [*244] ISSUE Under RCW 10.77.150, who bears the burden of proof when an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a state hospital seeks conditional release? FACTS During the night of December 13, 1993, Daniel Platt attempted to elude a pursuing police car. Following a high-speed chase at speeds of up to 80 miles per hour on Everett streets, during the course of which he ran several red lights and stop signs, Platt was caught by the police. He was combative and resisted arrest; he asked the police to call the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He claimed he was bleeding. He told the arresting officers he was on the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service hit lists and he had fled from the officers because he believed they [***3] were agents sent to kill him. The State charged Platt with attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, a felony under RCW 46.61.024. Following a Western State Hospital evaluation, the parties stipulated to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court found Platt not guilty by reason of insanity in August 1994 and placed him on conditional release, requiring him to undergo mental health treatment, take prescribed medications, and report to the Department of Corrections. Platt promptly violated the terms of the conditional release by failing to continue treatment, sending threatening letters, and making threatening phone calls. He returned to Western State Hospital where he spent much of 1995. Platt was again conditionally released in December 1995 and resumed working as a pharmacist, his chosen profession. n2 In January 1996, the State petitioned the trial court [*245] to issue a bench warrant for Platt's arrest, alleging he had failed to take his medications and he was delusional. Platt made threats involving firearms to his family, neighbors, and public officials and implied he would take his own life. He specifically referenced possession [***4] of an "Uzi" or AK-47. The threats prompted people to secure no-contact orders against Platt. Platt asserted he was hiding in a government witness relocation program and his deceased wife was still alive. The trial court modified Platt's conditions of release in January 1996, but did not issue a bench warrant for his detention. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n2 Throughout much of the period of his intermittent conditional releases, Pla
|
| |
| |
|