Following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”), the trial court will then order an evaluation of the individual at Grey Stone Park Psychiatric Hospital as said individual begins their so called Krol supervision. (Note: State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236 (1975), is the New Jersey Supreme Court case, which has established the rules for the disposition of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity.) This acquitted individual may be held in continued confinement if they are a danger to their self or others and in need of medical treatment. The purpose is not to punish, but “to protect society against individuals who, through no culpable fault of their own, pose a threat to public safety.” See Krol, 68 N.J. at 246.
Once committed at a state psychiatric hospital, NGRI acquittees are reviewed on a periodic basis under the same standards as those generally applied to civil commitments. However, an important exception is that the burden for establishing the need for continued commitment is by a preponderance of the evidence, while in a civil commitment proceeding, it is by clear and convincing evidence standard. See N.J.S.A. 2C:4-8(b)(3). For those who believe in the abolishment of the insanity defense (due to mental illness, the actor did not know nature & quality of their act OR act did not know it was wrong), a NGRI defendant may remain under Krol commitment for the maximum ordinary aggregate term that the defendant would have received if convicted of the criminal offenses charged.
However, Krol commitment requires that there be a substantial risk of dangerous conduct within the reasonably foreseeable future. The focus for the Krol judge is whether the defendant “presently poses a significant threat of harm, either to himself or to others.” The determination of “dangerousness” is “a legal one, not a medical one”. The statutory standard incorporates those two variables, i.e., “dangerous to self” and “dangerous to others or property”. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h), -27.2(i). This “[d]etermination of dangerousness involves prediction of defendant’s future conduct rather than mere characterization of … past conduct.” As the law (or statute) directs, the dangerousness determination “shall take into account a person’s history, recent behavior and any recent act, threat or serious psychiatric deterioration.” N.J.S.A. 30:4-27-27.2(h), -27.2(i).
The judge’s determination further requires a delicate balancing of society’s interest in protection from harmful conduct against the individual’s interest in personal liberty and autonomy. Hence, judicial orders, either requiring continued institutionalization at a state hospital or imposing lesser restraints, e.g., furloughed tripos to visit with family, are subject to modification on grounds that the defendant has become more or less dangerous than they were previously, or termination of court supervision because they are no longer mentally ill and dangerous. An NGRI acquittee may be conditionally released if the judge deems it appropriate. However, if conditionally released, an NGRI acquittee still remains subject to continued supervision by the court. See State v. Ortiz, 193 N.J. 293 (2008).
The New Jersey Court has recognized that in almost all cases where a NGRI acquittee demonstrated improvement, gradual reduction of restraints is almost always appropriate, but the sudden, complete removal of said restraints almost never is. See State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282, 303 (1978) and In Re E.D.,183 N.J. 536, 551 (2005). Ultimately, the Krol judge will consider the updated reports and testimony of the medical experts involved, including testimony of the NGRI acquittee and their family & friends, in deciding whether the individual should continue under court supervision or be discharged with no conditions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:4-8(b)(1).
If you or a loved one demonstrated any symptoms of mental illness prior to committing a serious crime(s), please immediately contact me. Incidentally, there are now jail diversion programs for those individuals with a diagnosed mental illness and are accused of committing lesser criminal offenses.