(1) The court which tried a person who is found not responsible by reason of insanity shall annually and may, upon its own motion or upon motion of the person or the prosecuting attorney, review the records of such person and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the status of the person. The court may, upon its own motion or upon a motion by the person or the prosecuting attorney, order an independent psychiatric or psychological evaluation of the person. The court shall consider the results of the evaluation at the evidentiary hearing. When the independent evaluation is conducted pursuant to a motion by the court or the prosecuting attorney, the cost of such independent evaluation shall be the expense of the county. When the evaluation is conducted pursuant to a motion by the person and if the person is not indigent, the cost of the evaluation shall be borne by the person.
(2) If as a result of such hearing the court finds that such person is no longer dangerous to himself, herself, or others by reason of mental illness or defect and will not be so dangerous in the foreseeable future, the court shall order such person unconditionally released from court-ordered treatment. If the court does not so find, 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.
(3) If the person has been treated in a regional center or other appropriate facility and is ordered placed in a less restrictive treatment program, the regional center or other appropriate facility shall develop an individual discharge plan consistent with the order of the court and shall provide the less restrictive treatment program a copy of the discharge plan and all relevant treatment information.
(4) Upon motion of the prosecuting attorney or upon its own motion, but at least annually, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the person is complying with the conditions set by the court. Upon an initial showing of probable cause by affidavit or sworn testimony that the person is not complying with the court-ordered conditions, the court may issue a warrant directing the sheriff or any peace officer to take the person into custody and place him or her into a mental health center, regional center, or other appropriate facility with available space where he or she shall be held pending the hearing. When a person has been taken into custody pursuant to this subsection, the hearing shall be held within ten days. Following the hearing, the court shall determine whether placement in the current treatment program should be continued or ceased and whether the conditions of the placement should be continued or modified.
(5) Any treatment program to which a person is committed on July 16, 1994, under this section or section 29-3702 shall submit reports to the trial court and the prosecuting attorney documenting the treatment progress of that person at least annually. Additionally, if the person fails to comply with any condition specified by the court, the court and the prosecuting attorney shall be notified forthwith.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case:
Mayfield v. Hartmann, 375 N.W.2d 146 (Neb. 1985).
Mayfield v. Hartmann, 375 N.W.2d 146 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 5× “er of grounds: (1) That at the time of his initial trial for sexual assault, he was incompetent to stand trial; (2) That when he offered his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, he did not realize and was not advised that such a defense could result in an indeterminate…”
State v. Hayden, 466 N.W.2d 66 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 14× “The court made this determination following a hearing pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Simants, 537 N.W.2d 346 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 7× “On August 23, 1994, the district court for Lincoln County conducted an annual review hearing on appellant’s status, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703 (Cum. Supp. 1994), which provides in pertinent part: *583 (1) The court which tried a person who is found not responsible by…”
Tulloch v. State, 465 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 7× “” The appellants also assert that § 29-3703 is vague and ambiguous, in violation of the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions, and that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ demurrer.”
State v. Morris, 518 N.W.2d 664 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 11× “At an annual review under § 29-3703, the trial court did not grant Morris the increased freedom of movement requested by the Center’s staff.”
State v. Simants, 517 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 7× “§ 29-3703 (Reissue 1989), which provides: (1) The court which tried a person who is found not responsible by reason of insanity shall annually and may upon its own motion or upon motion of the person or the prosecuting attorney, review the records of such person and conduct an…”
State v. Cribbs, 469 N.W.2d 108 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703 (1) (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Schinzel, 710 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 11× “Annual reviews of Schinzel’s status were subsequently conducted pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Hayden, 444 N.W.2d 317 (Neb. 1989).
“The court granted permission for defendant to leave the locked facility (1) to seek medical treatment under the supervision of Regional Center staff and (2) to perform activities on the grounds with a staff/patient ratio of 1 to 1.”
State v. Mayfield, 325 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 1982).
“The court also ordered that the defendant be administered appropriate medication in a form and manner which would assure its consumption by the defendant, and ordered that defendant be allowed to leave the locked facility of the security service unit only under the direct…”
State v. Simants, 330 N.W.2d 910 (Neb. 1983).
“The court also ordered that the next annual review and evidentiary hearing provided for by § 29-3703 be set for November 23, 1982. The defendant has appealed.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703(1) — 2 cases
State v. Schinzel, 710 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2006).
“Annual reviews of Schinzel’s status were subsequently conducted pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703 (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703(2) — 3 cases
Tulloch v. State, 465 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1991).
“” The appellants also assert that § 29-3703 is vague and ambiguous, in violation of the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions, and that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ demurrer.”
State v. Schinzel, 710 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2006).
“Annual reviews of Schinzel’s status were subsequently conducted pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703 (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703(3) — 1 case
State v. Schinzel, 710 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2006).
“Annual reviews of Schinzel’s status were subsequently conducted pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3703 (Reissue 1995).”
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.