Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

605 So. 2d 608

Docket No. 92-KK-0211.

State v. Boudreaux

STATE of Louisiana v. Louis D. BOUDREAUX.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided September 25, 1992.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1992-09-25

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably State v. Metz (1994), 643 So. 2d 1289 - State v. Kershaw (1994)

25 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“An insanity acquittee confined by the state is entitled to release when he has recovered his sanity or is no longer dangerous, i.e., he may be held as long as he is both mentally ill and dangerous but no longer. Moreover, even if his continued confinement is constitutionally possible, the state may continue confinement only if it shows by clear and convincing evidence that he is mentally ill and dangerous. Foucha v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1780 , 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992).”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Perez, 648 So. 2d 1319 - State v. Perez

Relies on Foucha v. Louisiana · Waller v. United States · 563 So. 2d 841 - State v. Perez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-09-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1PER CURIAM.

¶2Granted, vacated, and remanded.

¶3An insanity acquittee confined by the state is entitled to release when he has recovered his sanity or is no longer dangerous, i.e., he may be held as long as he is both mentally ill and dangerous but no longer. Moreover, even if his continued confinement is constitutionally possible, the state may continue confinement only if it shows by clear and convincing evidence that he is mentally ill and dangerous. Foucha v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992). It is evident that at the time of the hearing below, which occurred prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Foucha, the trial court did not apply these and perhaps other constitutional principles made clear by Foucha. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court and the court of appeal are vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new hearing in light of Foucha v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992).

¶4COLE, J., concurs.

¶5MARCUS, J., concurs in the remand, but expresses doubt that the Foucha standard applies in this factual situation. See State v. Perez,563 So.2d 841 (La.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2320, 119 L.Ed.2d 239.

/605/so2d/608 · .json · Public domain