Foucha v. Louisiana

504 U.S. 71 (1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Foucha (D) was charged by Louisiana authorities with aggravated burglary and illegal discharge of a firearm. Two medical doctors initially reported, and the trial court initially found, that D lacked mental capacity to proceed, but four months later the trial court found D competent to stand trial. The doctors reported that D was unable to distinguish right from wrong and was insane at the time of the offense. The trial court ruled that D was not guilty by reason of insanity, finding that he “is unable to appreciate the usual, natural and probable consequences of his acts; that he is unable to distinguish right from wrong; that he is a menace to himself and others; and that he was insane at the time of the commission of the above crimes and that he is presently insane.” D was committed to the East Feliciana Forensic Facility until such time as doctors recommend that he be released. In 1988, the superintendent of Feliciana recommended that D be discharged or released. A three-member panel was convened at the institution to determine D's current condition and whether he could be released or placed on probation without being a danger to others or himself. They reported that there had been no evidence of mental illness since admission and recommended that D be conditionally discharged. The trial judge appointed a two-member sanity commission made up of the same two doctors who had conducted the pretrial examination. They found that D “is presently in remission from mental illness but we cannot certify that he would not constitute a menace to himself or others if released.” D an antisocial personality, a condition that is not a mental disease and that is untreatable. D had been involved in several altercations at Feliciana and that he, the doctor, would not “feel comfortable in certifying that D would not be a danger to himself or other people. The court found that D 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 D had not carried the burden placed upon him by statute to prove that he was not dangerous, that the decision in Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983), did not require D'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. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.