onecle - legal research

Court Opinions

State Laws

US Code

US Constitution

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 32 (1992)

Legal Research Home > United States Supreme Court > 504 U.S. > Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 32 (1992)

Page:   Index   Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Cite as: 504 U. S. 71 (1992)

Opinion of the Court

a menace to himself or others if released." Id., at 12. One of the doctors testified at a hearing that upon commitment Foucha probably suffered from a drug induced psychosis but that he had recovered from that temporary condition; that he evidenced no signs of psychosis or neurosis and was in "good shape" mentally; that he had, however, an antisocial personality, a condition that is not a mental disease and that is untreatable. The doctor also testified that Foucha had been involved in several altercations at Feliciana and that he, the doctor, would not "feel comfortable in certifying that [Foucha] would not be a danger to himself or to other people." Id., at 18.

After it was stipulated that the other doctor, if he were present, would give essentially the same testimony, the court ruled that Foucha was dangerous to himself and others and ordered him returned to the mental institution. The Court of Appeal refused supervisory writs, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Foucha had not carried the burden placed upon him by statute to prove that he was not dangerous, that our decision in Jones v. United States, 463 U. S. 354 (1983), did not require Foucha's release, and that neither the Due Process Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause was violated by the statutory provision permitting confinement of an insanity acquittee based on dangerousness alone.

Because the case presents an important issue and was decided by the court below in a manner arguably at odds with prior decisions of this Court, we granted certiorari. 499 U. S. 946 (1991).

II

Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418 (1979), held that to commit an individual to a mental institution in a civil proceeding, the State is required by the Due Process Clause to prove by clear and convincing evidence the two statutory preconditions to commitment: that the person sought to be committed is mentally ill and that he requires hospitalization for his

75

Page:   Index   Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Speak with a Lawyer in Your Neighborhood

Last modified: October 4, 2007