A Vermont Supreme Court decision issued last week provides some clarity on the overlap of the mental health system and the criminal justice system.
At the heart of the case was a question: What say do prosecutors have in determining how long someone who was found insane or incompetent to stand trial should stay in the custody of the Department of Mental Health?
The entrance to the Vermont Supreme Court, next to the Statehouse. File photo by Roger Crowley/VTDigger
The court’s decision says that once a person is in the department’s custody, only the commissioner can petition for that custody to continue.
The filing in the state’s top court stemmed from two Bennington County cases involving defendants who were found either incompetent to stand trial or insane at the time of the offense.
Once a court makes either determination, the person is transferred to the custody of the mental health commissioner for 90 days. The person could be hospitalized or treated with community services, depending on the findings of the court.
The commissioner could determine that the person is ready to be discharged before the 90 days are up, which would trigger a court hearing. However, if the individual stays in Mental Health Department custody until the order expires and the commissioner does not request an extension, under state law no court hearing is necessary.
The Bennington County state’s attorney’s office challenged that.
The filing involved two cases. One person, referred to by the initials D.H., was charged with assault of a police officer and resisting arrest. Based on a post-arrest assessment, the court found D.H. was insane at the time, and a nonhospitalization order for treatment was issued.
A few days before the 90-day order expired, the state’s attorney requested a hearing to continue D.H.’s treatment. The Mental Health Department, however, did not seek to extend the treatment. The lower court decided the state’s attorney didn’t have the authority to extend the order.
In the second case, a person called B.C., who was charged with simple assault and aggravated disorderly conduct, was found incompetent to stand trial. After B.C. was arrested again and incarcerated on charges relating to behavior in a nursing home where B.C. lived, the prosecutor sought to extend the hospitalization order. However, the Mental Health Department did not ask to prolong its custody of B.C.
Erica Marthage, Bennington County state’s attorney.
According to the Vermont Supreme Court decision, the Bennington County state’s attorney appealed the lower court’s decision in both cases.
The state also argued, according to the decision, that DMH “unlawfully discriminates in the case of incompetent defendants by treating them in disparate fashion based upon the cause of their disability.”
Bennington County State’s Attorney Erica Marthage had not returned multiple requests for comment made throughout this week.
In a 10-page decision written by Justice Harold Eaton Jr., the court upheld the position of the lower court denying the prosecutor.
Though the juncture of the two relevant Vermont laws “is not a paradigm of clarity,” the decision states, “it is quite clear that the State’s Attorney is not empowered to seek an order of continued treatment.”
“That power is vested solely in the Department of Mental Health,” the decision continues.
Matt Viens, an assistant attorney general who represents the Department of Mental Health, said Tuesday that the decision is significant in that it resolves questions around an area of Vermont law that has sparked some disagreement.
“There has been confusion, and I think that this case helps to sort out some of that confusion,” Viens said.
Earlier this year, lawmakers spent time discussing whether prosecutors should have a role when an order committing someone to the custody of DMH expires. The bill, H.555, did not proceed.
Defender General Matt Valerio said the Supreme Court’s decision was in line with current law and practice.
“I think there are few people involved in the system who would have predicted any result different than what occurred here,” Valerio said.
A.J. Ruben, staff attorney with the advocacy group Disability Rights Vermont, said his biggest concerns when it comes to mental health and the criminal justice system are around resources. He said the system ends up relying on beds in prisons and emergency rooms.
“The system is pretty seriously flawed in terms of its capacity to do the right thing,” Ruben said.
The post Court rejects prosecutor role in mental health custody decisions appeared first on VTDigger.
