Jones v. United States
1983 U.S. LEXIS 95, 463 U.S. 354, 77 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1983)
Rule of Law:
When a criminal defendant is acquitted by reason of insanity, the Constitution permits the government to confine that individual in a mental institution indefinitely, until they have regained their sanity or are no longer a danger to themselves or society, even if the period of confinement exceeds the maximum prison sentence for the underlying offense.
Facts:
- On September 19, 1975, Michael Jones was arrested for attempting to steal a jacket from a department store in Washington, D.C.
- The charge of attempted petit larceny was a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum prison sentence of one year.
- A court-ordered psychiatric examination concluded that Jones suffered from "Schizophrenia, paranoid type" and that his alleged offense was a product of his mental disease.
- Jones decided to plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
- The government did not contest the plea and entered into a stipulation of facts with Jones.
- Jones remained committed to a mental hospital for more than one year, the maximum period he could have been imprisoned if convicted.
Procedural Posture:
- The District of Columbia Superior Court (trial court) arraigned Michael Jones on a charge of attempted petit larceny.
- The trial court ordered Jones committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital for a competency evaluation.
- Jones pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, which the government did not oppose.
- The trial court found Jones not guilty by reason of insanity and committed him to St. Elizabeths on March 12, 1976.
- At a release hearing on February 22, 1977, Jones requested unconditional release or a civil recommitment hearing, arguing he had been confined longer than the one-year maximum sentence.
- The trial court denied his request and continued his commitment.
- Jones (appellant) appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), which first reversed, but then, sitting en banc, affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require the release of an insanity acquittee who has been confined to a mental institution for a period longer than the maximum prison sentence he could have received if convicted of the underlying crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No, the Due Process Clause does not require the release of an insanity acquittee simply because their confinement has exceeded the maximum potential prison sentence. A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity establishes two critical facts: (1) the defendant committed a criminal act, which is strong evidence of dangerousness, and (2) the act was the product of a mental illness, which supports an inference of continuing illness. The purpose of commitment following an insanity acquittal is treatment and the protection of society, not punishment. Therefore, the length of confinement is properly tied to the individual's recovery and continuing dangerousness, not to the punitive measures associated with the criminal offense, making the hypothetical prison sentence irrelevant.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, indefinite commitment based solely on an insanity acquittal violates the Due Process Clause. While an initial period of commitment may be justified, indefinite confinement requires the government to meet the same standard as in civil commitments: proof of current mental illness and dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, as established in Addington v. Texas. A backward-looking verdict on a single, nonviolent misdemeanor is not a constitutionally adequate substitute for these protections. The majority's decision improperly equates insanity acquittees with a class that has diminished liberty interests, ignoring precedents like Baxstrom v. Herold, which required standard civil commitment procedures for prisoners at the end of their sentences.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, an insanity acquittee is presumptively entitled to freedom after being incarcerated for a period equal to the maximum sentence authorized by law for the crime. While the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity provides a sufficient basis for confinement up to that period, any further confinement requires the state to shoulder the burden of proving its necessity by clear and convincing evidence. To hold otherwise allows for disproportionate and indefinite confinement for a minor offense without adequate due process.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that insanity acquittees constitute a special class, distinct from both civilly committed individuals and convicted criminals. By holding that the purposes of confinement for insanity acquittees (treatment and public safety) are fundamentally different from the purposes of incarceration (punishment), the Court justified different and less stringent procedural requirements for their commitment. This ruling empowers the state to confine individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity for indefinite periods, based on their continuing mental illness and dangerousness, irrespective of the severity of the underlying criminal act.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Jones v. United States (1983)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"