State v. Stewart

467 So. 2d 1324, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 9137
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided April 15, 1985·No. No. 84-KA-574·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

BOUTALL, Judge.

Floyd Stewart was charged by bill of information with three counts of aggravated arson, R.S. 14:51 and one count of simple arson, R.S. 14:52. He pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, which plea was accepted by the district attorney and the court. Following commit[1325]*1325ment to Feliciana Forensic Facility in Jackson, Louisiana, defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, seeking either discharge or release on probation. The writ was denied and this appeal followed.

Appellant assigns the following two errors for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order appellant’s discharge or release on probation from Felicia-na Forensic Facility (“the facility”) and
2. Whether the trial court erred in basing its judgment on evidence not introduced into the record.

We affirm.

Floyd Stewart was arrested following a series of fires occurring over a period of time in St. James Parish. Notably, one of the fires for which he was charged was set in the apartment in which he lived with his mother, Eva Stewart, while she was sleeping. Ms. Stewart was not harmed. Following his arrest but prior to trial, Stewart’s counsel moved the court for a stay of proceedings pending the results of two psychiatric evaluations. The court granted the stay and the two evaluations were made and filed into the record. Shortly thereafter, Stewart entered his plea and was committed to the facility on April 5, 1982. The psychiatrist’s reports and evaluations have been submitted to the trial court which committed Stewart and they now form part of the instant record.

Shortly after admittance, Stewart was diagnosed as having a number of problems: Poor impulse control, anti-social personality (which cannot be cured), epileptic seizures which must be treated with medication, a lack of insight into personal problems as well as refusal to accept responsibility for wrongful actions, homosexuality, borderline intelligence, and a history of drug and alcohol abuse. It was noted by one of the treating physicians that alcohol combined with certain frustrating events related to defendant’s homosexuality seemed to result in Stewart setting the fires.

Over one year following defendant’s commitment, he petitioned for and was allowed twelve-hour passes restricted to East and West Feliciana Parishes; these passes were later modified to weekend passes and visitation privileges in St. James Parish. The State did not oppose the granting of these passes; however, the State now opposes the relief appellant seeks herein.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his writ of habeas corpus in which he sought a release or discharge from the facility. He claims his mental condition has progressed to the point where he is no longer a danger to himself or others, and thus he is being held at the facility contrary to the established law in this state. We disagree for the reasons set forth below.

La.C.Cr.P. art. 655 B provides that a defendant committed pursuant to La.C. Cr.P. art. 654 may apply to the court for a release or discharge and that upon application, “the Superintendent of the mental institution where the person was committed [shall] make a report and recommendation ... as to whether the person can be discharged or can be released on probation, without danger to others or to himself.” Art. 657 states that after considering these reports, the court may either continue commitment or conduct a contradictory hearing “... to determine whether the committed person can be discharged, or can be released on probation, without danger to others or to himself. -At the hearing the burden shall be upon the committed person to prove that he can be discharged, or can be released on probation, without danger to others or to himself.”

Pursuant to defendant’s writ of habeas corpus, a contradictory hearing was conducted in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 657. Following this hearing, the trial judge ordered the defendant recommitted and gave detailed reasons for his actions:

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 657 places the burden upon the committed person to prove that he can be discharged, or can be released on probation, without danger to himself or others. Ac[1326]*1326cording to the criteria set forth in Jackson v. Foti, continued commitment is justified only if dangerousness to self or others is a result of mental illness or defect.
The court finds that the defendant has failed to carry his burden of proving that he can be discharged or released on probation without danger to himself or others.
Although Dr. Pennington, who was called on to testify on behalf of defendant, recommended probation, the court finds that the release of this defendant would present a danger to others as well as himself. Floyd Stewart is a 25 year old who has suffered from seizures since birth and was accused of five counts of arson, the type of crime, which by nature is a crime which presents extreme potential danger to life and property to others as well as himself. The defendant has recently been released on passes and on one occasion was involved in an incident which leads the court to believe that he may have difficulty coping with the pressures of interacting with other people. This incident was not reported to the institution, probably for fear that it would result in his passes being curtailed or limited. The testimony further shows that the defendant has a low tolerance level which makes the court apprehensive that his conduct could explode were he confronted with some stressful confrontation. The court also notes that, although the Superintendent of the Feli-ciana Forensic Facility made a report to the court in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure Article 655(A), the report does not specifically recommend release.

We agree with the trial judge that the defendant failed to carry his burden of proof under La.C.Cr.P. art. 657. Although the evidence shows considerable improvement in defendant’s mental condition since commitment, we are of the opinion he has not reached the point of being cured. Moreover, this progress is probably attributable to the fact defendant was being treated with chemotherapy1 and various medications, prior to the hearing.

There are several factors which lead us to believe the trial judge was correct in not ordering the discharge or release of defendant. First is the fact defendant was not quite cured of his mental problems and that these problems are directly connected to his dangerousness. Included in this factor is the number and complexity of the problems defendant exhibited when he was committed, as described earlier in this opinion. Also of concern is one of the treating psychiatrist’s statements in a progress report that in her opinion, pyromaniacs are recidivist.2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Stewart, 467 So. 2d 1324, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 9137 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

467 So. 2d 1324 (State v. Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harper v. State ex rel. Department of Health & Hospitals
176 So. 3d 479 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
State v. Stewart
493 So. 2d 227 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)