Criminal Law - Treatment of Criminally Insane - Commitment following Acquittal by Reason of Insanity Must Comply with Standards of Civil Commitment Statute. Bolton v. Harris, 395 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
![handle is hein.journals/hcrcl4 and id is 220 raw text is: CRIMINAL LAW--TREATMENT OF CRIMINALLY INSANE--
COMMITMENT FOLLOWING ACQUITTAL BY REASON OF
INSANITY MUST COMPLY WITH STANDARDS OF CIVIL
COMMITMENT STATUTE. Bolton v. Harris 395 F. 2d 642
(D. C. Cir. 1968)
Charged with transportation of a stolen motor vehicle
Gerald Bolton pleaded the defense of insanity at his trial in
August, 1966. The trial court found him not guilty by reason
of insanity and committed him to St. Elizabeth's mental hospital
as required by the District of Columbia's mandatory commit-
ment law, section 24-301(d) of the District of Columbia Code.1
Three months later, Bolton filed a habeas corpus petition alleg-
ing that he was no longer insane. 2 On appeal from the federal
district court's denial of relief 3 Bolton alleged that mandatory
commitment without a hearing to determine present mental con-
dition violates due process and equal protection of the laws4 in
'If any person tried upon an indictment or information
for an offense . . . is acquitted solely upon the ground that he
was insane at the time of its commission the court shall order
such person to be confined in a hospital for the mentally ill.
D. C. Code Encyc. § 24-301(d) (1967) (hereinafter cited as §
301(d)].
2A person committed under section 301(d) is entitled to
release when the superintendent of the hospital certifies (1) that
such person has recovered his sanity, (2) that, in the opinion of
the superintendent such person will not in the reasonable future
be dangerous to himself or others. .... D. C. Code Encyc. §
24-301(e) (1967) [hereinafter cited as § 301(e)] .
Prior to the instant case if the superintendent refused
to certify release and the patient sought release on habeas
corpus, he had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was
free from such abnormal mental condition as would make him
dangerous to himself or the community in the reasonably fore-
seeable future, and that the refusal of the superintendent was
arbitrary and capricious. Ragsdale v. Overholser, 281 F. 2d
943 947 (D. C. Cir. 1960); Overholser v. Leach, 257 F. 2d
667, 669, 670 (D.C. Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 1013
(1959).
3
Bolton v. Cameron, H. C. No. 483-66 (D. D. C. Dec. 16,
1966).
4
The government argued that Bolton had not raised the
-214-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hcrcl4&div=14&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most