Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 66-337 (2026)
Review, termination of commitment and discharge of patients.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Review, termination of commitment and discharge of patients.
(1) The department director or his designee shall as frequently as practicable but at least once at the end of the first ninety (90) days examine or cause to be examined every patient committed to his custody or admitted to an inpatient facility of the state of Idaho, and determine whether to conditionally release, discharge or terminate the commitment of the patient. If the patient has not been conditionally released, discharged, or had the commitment terminated a similar review shall be conducted every one hundred twenty (120) days thereafter. A report of each review and determination regarding an involuntary patient shall be sent to the committing court, prosecuting attorney of the county of commitment, if any, the patient’s attorney, and either the patient’s spouse, guardian, next of kin or friend.
(2) The commitment of an involuntary patient shall be terminated if the patient no longer meets criteria under section 66-329, Idaho Code; provided, that patients admitted under section 18-214, Idaho Code, acquitted of criminal charges filed prior to July 1, 1982, on grounds of mental disease or defect, or committed pursuant to sections 18-212(4) and 66-329, Idaho Code, as unfit to proceed, may not be released from an inpatient facility unless seven (7) days before such release, the department director or his designee shall notify the committing court and prosecuting attorney of the contemplated release.
(3) Upon notification of intention to release from an inpatient facility either a patient admitted under section 18-214, Idaho Code, acquitted of criminal charges filed prior to July 1, 1982, on grounds of mental disease or defect, or committed pursuant to sections 18-212(4) and 66-329, Idaho Code, as unfit to proceed, and upon motion of an interested party or the court on its own motion, the court shall determine whether the conditions justifying such release exist. In making such determination, the court may order an independent examination of the patient. The cost of such independent examination must be borne by the party making the motion or, if indigent, the county having jurisdiction of the case. If no motion is made, the patient may be released according to the notice.
(4) Section 18-214, Idaho Code, shall remain in full force and effect for every individual previously acquitted pursuant to section 18-213, Idaho Code. Section 18-214, Idaho Code, as last amended by section 2, chapter 13, laws of 1977, which is placed here for reference only and is not a reenactment of section 18-214, Idaho Code, and reads as follows:
18-214. Commitment of acquitted defendant — Conditional release — Revocation of release within five years. (1) When a defendant is acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, the court shall order him to be committed to the custody of the director of the department of health and welfare to be placed in an appropriate institution for custody, care and treatment.
(2) If the director of the department of health and welfare is of the view that a person committed to his custody, pursuant to paragraph (1) of this section, may be discharged or released on condition without danger to himself or to others, he shall make application for the discharge or release of such person in a report to the court by which such person was committed and shall transmit a copy of such application and report to the prosecuting attorney of the county from which the defendant was committed. The court shall thereupon appoint at least two (2) qualified psychiatrists to examine such person and to report within sixty (60) days, or such longer period as the court determines to be necessary for the purpose, their opinion as to his mental condition. To facilitate such examination and the proceedings thereon, the court may cause such person to be confined in any institution located near the place where the court sits, which may hereafter be designated by the director of the department of health and welfare as suitable for the temporary detention of irresponsible persons.
(3) If the court is satisfied by the report filed pursuant to paragraph (2) of this section and such testimony of the reporting psychiatrists as the court deems necessary that the committed person may be discharged or released on condition without danger to himself or others, the court shall order his discharge or his release on such conditions as the court determines to be necessary. If the court is not so satisfied, it shall promptly order a hearing to determine whether such person may safely be discharged or released. Any such hearing shall be deemed a civil proceeding and the burden shall be upon the committed person to prove that he may safely be discharged or released. According to the determination of the court upon the hearing, the committed person shall thereupon be discharged or released on such conditions as the court determines to be necessary, or shall be recommitted to the custody of the director of the department of health and welfare, subject to discharge or release only in accordance with the procedure prescribed above for a first hearing.
(4) If, within five (5) years after the conditional release of a committed person, the court shall determine, after hearing evidence, that the conditions of release have not been fulfilled and that for the safety of such person or for the safety of others his conditional release should be revoked, the court shall forthwith order him to be recommitted to the custody of the director of the department of health and welfare subject to discharge or release only in accordance with the procedure prescribed above for a first hearing.
(5) A committed person may make application for his discharge or release to the court by which he was committed, and the procedure to be followed upon such application shall be the same as that prescribed above in the case of an application by the director of the department of health and welfare. However, no such application by a committed person need be considered until he has been confined for a period of not less than six (6) months from the date of the order of commitment and if the determination of the court be adverse to the application, such person shall not be permitted to file a further application until one (1) year has elapsed from the date of any preceding hearing on an application for his release or discharge.
(6) If a defendant escapes from custody during his confinement, the director shall immediately notify the court from which committed, the prosecuting attorney and the sheriff of the county from which committed. The court shall forthwith issue an order authorizing any health officer, peace officer, or the director of the institution from which the defendant escaped, to take the defendant into custody and immediately return him to his place of confinement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1982–1998 · leading case: Application of True, 645 P.2d 891 (Idaho 1982).
Application of True, 645 P.2d 891 (Idaho 1982). “I.C. § 66-337 provided the following during the relevant period of this proceeding: "The director of the department of health and welfare or his designated representative shall as frequently as practical but at least once at the end of the first ninety (90) days examine or cause…”
State v. Chilton, 736 P.2d 1277 (Idaho 1987). “The trial court based its decision, in large part, upon reports it ordered pursuant to I.C. §§ 66-337 and 18-214 (repealed), by doctors Lamarr Heyrend and Michael Estess.”
State v. Nielsen, 960 P.2d 177 (Idaho 1998). “§ 66-337(d) alleging that he was no longer mentally ill and that he did not fit the criterion for civil commitment.”
Application of Gafford, 903 P.2d 61 (Idaho 1995). “PROCEDURAL HISTORY The magistrate determined that I.C. § 66-337(d), which allows for the continued confinement of insanity acquittees on the basis of dangerousness alone, is unconstitutional in light of Foucha .”
Application of Downing, 652 P.2d 193 (Idaho 1982). “Under I.C. § 66-337(a), a person involuntarily committed under I.”
Application of Henry, 900 P.2d 1360 (Idaho 1995). “§ 66 — 387(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Henry’s future confinement, in the absence of a legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b). Cf. State v. Chilton, 112 Idaho 823 , 736 P.”
Application of Nielsen, 902 P.2d 474 (Idaho 1995). “§ 66-337(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Nielsen’s future confinement, in the absence of a legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b). Cf. State v. Chilton, 112 Idaho 823 , 736 P.”
— Idaho Code § 66-337(a) — 2 cases
Application of Downing, 652 P.2d 193 (Idaho 1982). “Under I.C. § 66-337(a), a person involuntarily committed under I.”
State v. Nielsen, 960 P.2d 177 (Idaho 1998). “§ 66-337(d) alleging that he was no longer mentally ill and that he did not fit the criterion for civil commitment.”
— Idaho Code § 66-337(b) — 5 cases
Application of Henry, 900 P.2d 1360 (Idaho 1995). “§ 66 — 387(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Henry’s future confinement, in the absence of a legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b). Cf. State v. Chilton, 112 Idaho 823 , 736 P.”
Application of Downing, 652 P.2d 193 (Idaho 1982). “Under I.C. § 66-337(a), a person involuntarily committed under I.”
State v. Chilton, 736 P.2d 1277 (Idaho 1987). “The trial court based its decision, in large part, upon reports it ordered pursuant to I.C. §§ 66-337 and 18-214 (repealed), by doctors Lamarr Heyrend and Michael Estess.”
State v. Nielsen, 960 P.2d 177 (Idaho 1998). “§ 66-337(d) alleging that he was no longer mentally ill and that he did not fit the criterion for civil commitment.”
Application of Nielsen, 902 P.2d 474 (Idaho 1995). “§ 66-337(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Nielsen’s future confinement, in the absence of a legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b). Cf. State v. Chilton, 112 Idaho 823 , 736 P.”
— Idaho Code § 66-337(c) — 2 cases
State v. Chilton, 736 P.2d 1277 (Idaho 1987). “The trial court based its decision, in large part, upon reports it ordered pursuant to I.C. §§ 66-337 and 18-214 (repealed), by doctors Lamarr Heyrend and Michael Estess.”
State v. Nielsen, 960 P.2d 177 (Idaho 1998). “§ 66-337(d) alleging that he was no longer mentally ill and that he did not fit the criterion for civil commitment.”
— Idaho Code § 66-337(d) — 4 cases
Application of Gafford, 903 P.2d 61 (Idaho 1995). “PROCEDURAL HISTORY The magistrate determined that I.C. § 66-337(d), which allows for the continued confinement of insanity acquittees on the basis of dangerousness alone, is unconstitutional in light of Foucha .”
State v. Nielsen, 960 P.2d 177 (Idaho 1998). “§ 66-337(d) alleging that he was no longer mentally ill and that he did not fit the criterion for civil commitment.”
Application of Henry, 900 P.2d 1360 (Idaho 1995). “§ 66 — 387(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Henry’s future confinement, in the absence of a legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b). Cf. State v. Chilton, 112 Idaho 823 , 736 P.”
Application of Nielsen, 902 P.2d 474 (Idaho 1995). “§ 66-337(d) is unconstitutional under the principles enumerated in Foucha , Nielsen’s future confinement, in the absence of a legislative response, will be governed by the terms for release contained in I.C. § 66-337(b). Cf. State v. Chilton, 112 Idaho 823 , 736 P.”
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.