(1) Following receipt of a verdict of acquittal on grounds of insanity, the court shall forthwith conduct a hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the person is dangerous to himself, herself, or others by reason of mental illness or defect or will be so dangerous in the foreseeable future, as demonstrated by omissions, threats, or overt acts. In making this determination the court shall consider all evidence adduced at trial and all additional relevant evidence. If the court finds probable cause it shall order an evaluation not to exceed ninety days in length of the person's mental condition and a treatment plan pursuant to subsection (4) of this section. The evaluation of the person may be conducted as an outpatient at a regional center or other appropriate facility if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses no current danger to society at the time of the probable cause hearing and will not become a danger to society during the evaluation period. Otherwise the evaluation of the person shall be conducted as an inpatient at a locked and secure regional center facility or other appropriate locked and secure facility. When the court orders such an inpatient evaluation, the court shall specify in a detailed written order all conditions of the person's confinement during the evaluation and under what, if any, circumstances the person may leave the locked and secure facility. The written order specifying the conditions of confinement shall include a finding by the court that any freedom of movement accorded the person outside a locked and secure facility is consistent with the safety of the public.
(2) The superintendent of the regional center or the director of the facility to which the person has been referred or confined for evaluation shall be responsible for supervising the evaluation and the preparation of an individualized treatment plan.
(3) The report of the evaluation shall address the following to the extent that the available information allows: (a) The person's psychological condition at the time of the evaluation; (b) the probable course of development of the person's condition, with special attention to the probable relationship between the person's current condition and the person's condition at the time of any omissions, threats, or overt acts establishing dangerousness, including the crime for which he or she was acquitted on grounds of insanity; (c) the probable relationship, if any, between the previous omissions, threats, or overt acts establishing dangerousness and the person's condition at the time of the omissions, threats, or overt acts; and (d) the prognosis for change in the person's condition in light of available treatment.
(4) The individualized treatment plan shall contain a statement of the nature of the specific mental and physical problems and needs of the person, a statement of the least restrictive treatment conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of the plan, a statement of the least restrictive treatment conditions consistent with the safety of the public, and a description of intermediate and long-range treatment goals and a projected timetable for their attainment.
(5) Such evaluation and treatment plan shall include the facts upon which conclusions stated therein are based and shall be received by the court at least ten days prior to the expiration of the evaluation period. Copies of the evaluation and treatment plan shall be furnished to the prosecuting attorney and to the person.
(6) If the person desires a separate evaluation, he or she may file a motion with the court requesting an evaluation by one or more qualified experts of his or her choice. Such evaluation shall be at the person's expense unless otherwise ordered by the court. Any such expert evaluating a person pursuant to this subsection shall have access to the person's records at his or her place of confinement. The court may extend the person's referral or confinement for an additional period not to exceed sixty days, if necessary to permit completion of the separate evaluation. The evaluation shall include the facts upon which conclusions stated therein are based and shall be received by the court at least ten days prior to the expiration of the evaluation period. A copy of such evaluation shall be furnished the prosecuting attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case:
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 17× “On April 5, defendant was ordered admitted to the Regional Center for a period not to exceed 90 days for the evaluation of his mental condition and for the preparation of a treatment plan pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (4) (Reissue 1985).”
State v. Hayden, 466 N.W.2d 66 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 14× “That statute provides for annual review of the mental condition of persons who have been found not responsible for crimes because of insanity and have been confined after a determination of their dangerousness under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 and 29-3702 (Reissue 1989).”
Tulloch v. State, 465 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 8× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 et seq. (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Simants, 330 N.W.2d 910 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 6× “This is an appeal from an order of the District Court following a hearing mandated under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 et seq. (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Steele, 399 N.W.2d 267 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 12× “Steele entered a plea of not responsible by reason of insanity, was so adjudged, and was committed to the Lincoln Regional Center pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (Reissue 1985) for a 90-day evaluation period.”
State v. Simants, 517 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 5× “The defendant filed an objection to the motion on the grounds that the evaluation was in violation of his right to due process; that it was in the form of a “second opinion,” for which there is no authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 et seq. (Reissue 1989); that the motion…”
State v. Morris, 518 N.W.2d 664 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “He was thereafter committed to the Lincoln Regional Center (Center) for treatment under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 to 29-3706 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Vaughn, 402 N.W.2d 300 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Based on this evidence, the court found the defendant was not responsible by reason of insanity, entered an order of acquittal, and ordered a hearing pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (Reissue 1985).”
State v. Mayfield, 325 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 1982).
· cites it 2× “This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for Douglas County under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 et seq. (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Schinzel, 710 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Following a hearing held pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (1) (Reissue 1995), Schinzel was found to be dangerous to himself or others *283 by reason of mental illness and defect.”
State v. Williams (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “Williams appeals from a post-acquittal commitment proceeding held pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 and 29-3702 (Reissue 2016).”
Mayfield v. Ford, 664 F. Supp. 1285 (D. Neb. 1987).
· cites it 7× “Laws 213, § 6 (codified at Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 29-3701 to -3706 (Supp.1984)), which provided special procedures for handling persons acquitted of crimes on grounds of insanity.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701(1) — 3 cases
Tulloch v. State, 465 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1991).
“See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 et seq. (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Steele, 399 N.W.2d 267 (Neb. 1987).
“Steele entered a plea of not responsible by reason of insanity, was so adjudged, and was committed to the Lincoln Regional Center pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (Reissue 1985) for a 90-day evaluation period.”
State v. Williams (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
“Williams appeals from a post-acquittal commitment proceeding held pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 and 29-3702 (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701(2) — 1 case
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
“On April 5, defendant was ordered admitted to the Regional Center for a period not to exceed 90 days for the evaluation of his mental condition and for the preparation of a treatment plan pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (4) (Reissue 1985).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701(3) — 1 case
Tulloch v. State, 465 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1991).
“See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 et seq. (Reissue 1989).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701(4) — 1 case
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
“On April 5, defendant was ordered admitted to the Regional Center for a period not to exceed 90 days for the evaluation of his mental condition and for the preparation of a treatment plan pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (4) (Reissue 1985).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701(5) — 2 cases
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
“On April 5, defendant was ordered admitted to the Regional Center for a period not to exceed 90 days for the evaluation of his mental condition and for the preparation of a treatment plan pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (4) (Reissue 1985).”
State v. Steele, 399 N.W.2d 267 (Neb. 1987).
“Steele entered a plea of not responsible by reason of insanity, was so adjudged, and was committed to the Lincoln Regional Center pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (Reissue 1985) for a 90-day evaluation period.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701(6) — 4 cases
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
“On April 5, defendant was ordered admitted to the Regional Center for a period not to exceed 90 days for the evaluation of his mental condition and for the preparation of a treatment plan pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 (4) (Reissue 1985).”
Tulloch v. State, 465 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1991).
“See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 et seq. (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Hayden, 466 N.W.2d 66 (Neb. 1991).
“That statute provides for annual review of the mental condition of persons who have been found not responsible for crimes because of insanity and have been confined after a determination of their dangerousness under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3701 and 29-3702 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Simants, 517 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. 1994).
“The defendant filed an objection to the motion on the grounds that the evaluation was in violation of his right to due process; that it was in the form of a “second opinion,” for which there is no authority under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3701 et seq. (Reissue 1989); that the motion…”
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.