(1) Prior to the expiration of the evaluation period provided for in section 29-3701, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the condition of the person, at which time a representative of the facility where he or she was evaluated may testify as to the results of the evaluation and the contents of the treatment plan. Based upon the results of the evaluation, evidence adduced at trial, evidence of other omissions, threats, or overt acts indicative of dangerousness, and any other relevant evidence, the court shall determine whether the person is dangerous to himself, herself, or others by reason of mental illness or defect, will be so dangerous in the foreseeable future, or will be so dangerous absent continuing participation in appropriate treatment.
(2) If the court does not find that there is clear and convincing evidence of such dangerousness, as demonstrated by omissions, threats, or overt acts, the court shall unconditionally release the person from further court-ordered treatment. If the court finds clear and convincing evidence of such dangerousness, as demonstrated by omissions, threats, or overt acts, the court shall order that such person participate in an appropriate treatment program specifying conditions of liberty and monitoring consistent with the treatment needs of the person and the safety of the public. The treatment program may involve any public or private facility or program which offers treatment for mental illness and may include an inpatient, residential, day, or outpatient setting. The court shall place the person in the least restrictive available treatment program that is consistent with the treatment needs of the person and the safety of the public. Personnel at the facility providing the treatment program shall obey the court-ordered conditions, and any person who fails to do so shall upon conviction be subject to the full contempt powers of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case:
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 10× “On July 8, 1988, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the commitment proceedings because the Regional Center had not submitted an evaluation and treatment plan to the court by June 24 and because the State failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to the expiration of the…”
Interest of C.P. v. M.A., 455 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Because the State failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before the expiration of the 90-day period as provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702 (Reissue 1989), Steele argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and that he must be released from the Lincoln Regional Center.”
Montin v. Est. of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409 (8th Cir. 2011).
“At a minimum, he alleges an unconstitutional and ongoing deprivation of a liberty interest granted by a state statute requiring the Center to place Montin “in the least restrictive available treatment program that is consistent with the treatment needs of the person and the…”
State v. Hayden, 466 N.W.2d 66 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Woytassek’s own interviews and observations and based upon written reports and records of other staff personnel at the regional center.”
Randall v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 632 N.W.2d 799 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Because the State failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before the expiration of the 90-day period as provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702 (Reissue 1985), Steele argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and that he must be released from the Lincoln Regional Center.”
State v. Morris, 518 N.W.2d 664 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “On August 8, 1990, the court held a hearing under § 29-3702 and found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Morris was mentally ill and dangerous to himself or others by reason of mental illness or defect.”
State v. Huss, 666 N.W.2d 152 (Iowa 2003).
“2d 1295, 1299 (1998))), and Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-3702(2) (“If the court does not *159 find that there is clear and convincing evidence of [omissions, threats, or overt acts indicative of dangerousness] the court shall unconditionally release the person from further court-ordered…”
State v. Steele, 399 N.W.2d 267 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 5× “The hearing required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702 (Reissue 1985) was provided the appellant on February 18, 1986, at which Steele was found by clear and convincing evidence to be dangerous to himself and others and was committed to the Lincoln Regional Center.”
Tulloch v. State, 465 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 2× “§ 29-3702. The statute calls for an annual review by the original trial court of the individual’s status, and if it is found *141 that the individual is no longer dangerous, the court shall order the individual unconditionally released.”
State v. Schinzel, 710 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Following the evaluation, a hearing was held pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702 (Reissue 1995), and the court, on September 26, 1996, ordered Schinzel committed to LRC for treatment.”
In Re Interest of Dickson, 469 N.W.2d 357 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702 (Reissue 1989), at the expiration of the evaluation period, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the individual remains dangerous in order to continue holding him.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702(1) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702(2) — 4 cases
Montin v. Est. of Johnson, 636 F.3d 409 (8th Cir. 2011).
“At a minimum, he alleges an unconstitutional and ongoing deprivation of a liberty interest granted by a state statute requiring the Center to place Montin “in the least restrictive available treatment program that is consistent with the treatment needs of the person and the…”
State v. Huss, 666 N.W.2d 152 (Iowa 2003).
“2d 1295, 1299 (1998))), and Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-3702(2) (“If the court does not *159 find that there is clear and convincing evidence of [omissions, threats, or overt acts indicative of dangerousness] the court shall unconditionally release the person from further court-ordered…”
State v. Schinzel, 710 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2006).
“Following the evaluation, a hearing was held pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3702 (Reissue 1995), and the court, on September 26, 1996, ordered Schinzel committed to LRC for treatment.”
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.