Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-599 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 17-257t). Confinement under conditions of maximum security. Transfer for medical treatment. Risk management review committee. Requests to transfer from maximum security division to lower security division

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) At any time the court or the board determines that the acquittee is a person who should be confined, it shall make a further determination of whether the acquittee is so violent as to require confinement under conditions of maximum security. Any acquittee found so violent as to require confinement under conditions of maximum security shall not be confined in any hospital for psychiatric disabilities or placed with the Commissioner of Developmental Services unless such hospital or said commissioner has the trained and equipped staff, facilities or security to accommodate such acquittee.

(b) The Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services may transfer any acquittee who requires (1) confinement under conditions of maximum security pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, and (2) medical treatment that is unavailable in the maximum security environment or would constitute a safety hazard to the acquittee or others due to the use of certain medical equipment or material, to a facility that can provide such medical treatment, provided (A) the commissioner ensures that the conditions of custody of the acquittee at such facility are and remain equivalent to conditions of maximum security, (B) the commissioner consults with a licensed health care provider who has evaluated the acquittee regarding such transfer and the licensed health care provider approves of such transfer, and (C) transfer of the acquittee back to the maximum security setting occurs upon completion of the medical treatment. The commissioner shall provide the board with notice of such transfer at the most reasonable time determined by the superintendent, but not later than forty-eight hours after such transfer.

(c) Each hospital for psychiatric disabilities treating acquittees under secure conditions shall establish a risk management review committee comprised of licensed clinical professionals and administrators of the hospital to review requests to transfer an acquittee from a maximum security division of the hospital to a lower security division of the hospital for the reason described in this subsection. If at any time after the confinement of an acquittee in a hospital for psychiatric disabilities under conditions of maximum security, the superintendent of such hospital is of the opinion, after consultation with the hospital's risk management review committee, that the acquittee's psychiatric supervision and treatment would be safely advanced by permitting the acquittee to transfer to a lower security division of the hospital, the superintendent may effectuate the transfer. The superintendent shall provide the board with at least forty-eight hours advance notice of the transfer. The board shall notify each victim, as defined in section 17a-601, of the acquittee regarding the transfer.

(P.A. 85-506, S. 20, 32; P.A. 87-486, S. 12; P.A. 95-257, S. 48, 58; P.A. 07-73, S. 2(b); P.A. 17-179, S. 1; P.A. 22-45, S. 8.)

History: P.A. 87-486 added reference to an acquittee placed with the commissioner of mental retardation; Sec. 17-257t transferred to Sec. 17a-599 in 1991; P.A. 95-257 substituted “psychiatric disabilities” for “mental illness”, effective July 1, 1995; pursuant to P.A. 07-73 “Commissioner of Mental Retardation” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Developmental Services”, effective October 1, 2007; P.A. 17-179 designated existing provisions re determination of whether acquittee is so violent as to require confinement under maximum security as Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b) re transfer of acquittee for medical treatment; P.A. 22-45 amended Subsec. (b) by eliminating requirement that the commissioner provide written justification to the board for transfer for medical treatment and requiring consultation with and approval by a health care provider and notification of the board re such transfer and added Subsec. (c) requiring the establishment of a risk management review committee to review requests to transfer from maximum security division to a lower security division.

Nothing in section limits board's discretion re placement of acquittees who are not found to be so violent as to require maximum security confinement, thus section does not contemplate that only “so violent” acquittees may be confined under conditions of maximum security, and therefore regulation re maximum security confinement for acquittees does not impermissibly conflict with section. 291 C. 307.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Sastrom v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 968 A.2d 396 (Conn. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sastrom v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 968 A.2d 396 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 25× “whether the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide the appeals brought by the plaintiffs, Roy Sastrom and Guy Levine, 1 from the declaratory rulings by the defendant, the psychiatric security review board (board), in which the board concluded that § 17a-581-44…”

Connelly v. Comm'r of Corr., 780 A.2d 903 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 8× “See General Statutes § 17a-599. 8 *400 In 1993, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to have the habeas court vacate the trial court’s judgment of acquittal by reason of lack of capacity due to mental disease or defect.”

Dyous v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 826 A.2d 138 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 14× “Specifically, the plaintiff contends that General Statutes § 17a-599, 12 the provision requiring the board to make a further determination as to whether to place an acquittee in a maximum *773 security facility, cannot be viewed in isolation from its context within the entire…”

Roy Sastrom v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 918 A.2d 902 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 13× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his claim that § 17a-581-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut State *214 Agencies 1 is invalid because it conflicts with General Statutes § 17a-599. 2 We…”

State v. Kalman, 868 A.2d 766 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 10× “Ill The acquittee’s third claim is that the court improperly committed him to the board under conditions of maximum security in violation of General Statutes § 17a-599. The state disagrees with the acquittee’s claim, *142 but also argues that we lack subject matter jurisdiction…”

State v. Anderson, 203 A.3d 683 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “" General Statutes § 17a-584 (3). General Statutes § 17a-599 provides in relevant part that, "[a]t any time the court or the board determines that the acquittee is a person who should be confined, it shall make a further determination of whether the acquittee is so violent as to…”

Levine v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 918 A.2d 900 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 7× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his claim that § 17a-581-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies 1 is invalid because it conflicts with General Statutes § 17a-599. 2 We affirm…”

State v. Anderson (Conn. 2015). · cites it 4× “’’ General Statutes § 17a-584 (3). General Statutes § 17a-599 provides in relevant part that, ‘‘[a]t any time the court or the board determines that the acquittee is a person who should be confined, it shall make a further determination of whether the acquittee is so violent as…”

Dyous v. Mental Health & Addiction Servs. (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 2× “SAC ¶ 66; see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-599(c). Dutcher building with a 1:6 staffing ratio and to the facility grounds with a 1:3 staffing ratio.”

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-599(c) — 1 case

Dyous v. Mental Health & Addiction Servs. (D. Conn. 2024). “SAC ¶ 66; see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-599(c). Dutcher building with a 1:6 staffing ratio and to the facility grounds with a 1:3 staffing ratio.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.