Argued
September 24, 2019
The
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, DAddabbo, J.
Page 1019
Monte
P. Radler, public defender, with whom was Richard E. Condon,
Jr., senior assistant public defender, for the appellant
(acquittee).
Sarah
Hanna, assistant states attorney, with whom, on the brief,
were Gail P. Hardy, states attorney, Vicki Melchiorre,
supervisory assistant states attorney, and Adam B. Scott,
supervisory assistant states attorney, for the appellee
(state).
Bright,
Moll and Bishop, Js.
OPINION
BISHOP,
J.
[194
Conn.App. 832] The acquittee,[1] Ruben Vasquez, appeals
from the judgment of the trial court denying his application
for discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric
Security Review Board (board).[2] On appeal, the acquittee
claims that the court erred in denying his application for
discharge because the diagnoses attributed to him—
cannabis induced psychotic episode, an acute intoxication now
in full remission; cannabis use disorder in remission in a
controlled environment; and alcohol use disorder in remission
in a controlled environment— are not considered mental
illnesses and, thus, do not constitute psychiatric
disabilities under General Statutes § § 17a-580 through
17a-602 (board statutes). We affirm the judgment of the
court.
[194
Conn.App. 833] The following facts and procedural history are
relevant to our analysis. "[On July 14, 2009, the
acquittee] ... randomly attack[ed] five young individuals,
with a four foot six inch [one by four] hard yellow pine
pressure treated board. Two of the young individuals attacked
were a three and one year old child. While being taken into
custody, [the acquittee] physically attacked a police
officer."
The
acquittee was charged with four counts of assault in the
second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a)
(2), two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of
General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), four counts of criminal
attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of
General Statutes § § 53a-49 and 53a-50 (a) (1), and two
counts of assault of a peace officer in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (1).[3] On June 7, 2011, the
acquittee was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or
defect pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13.[4] On August 8,
2011,
Page 1020
the court, Randolph, J., committed the acquittee to
the jurisdiction of the board and ordered that he be confined
at Dutcher Service on the campus of the Connecticut Val-ley
Hospital for a period not to exceed fifteen years.
On July
25, 2017, in accordance with § 17a-593 (a), the acquittee
filed an application with the court seeking discharge from
the jurisdiction of the board. The court forwarded the
application to the board, which held a hearing on September
15, 2017, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-593 (d). On
October 26, 2017, the board filed its report with the court
recommending that the acquittee not be discharged because
"[a]lthough [the [194 Conn.App. 834] acquittees]
psychotic symptoms have not been active since his commitment
to the [b]oard, he has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment,
impulsivity, deceitfulness and rule breaking behavior. He has
disregarded the rules and protocols in a hospital setting,
thereby jeopardizing the [t]emporary [l]eave that would have
permitted [the acquittee] to transition to the community.
[The acquittees] treatment team has recommended he consider
medication to assist with some of his problematic behaviors,
but he has declined the recommendation."
In
addition, in its report filed with the court, the board
discussed the acquittees risk factors, stating that
"[a] significant risk factor for [the acquittee] remains
his history of substance use. As testimony indicated, a
substance use relapse would increase [the acquittees] risk
for a re-emergence of his psychotic symptoms. Testimony noted
that stress has the potential to exacerbate [the acquittees]
risk of relapse. If discharged from the jurisdiction of the
[b]oard, [the acquittee] would return to the community
without an established support network. Given that [the
acquittees] psychotic symptoms are intimately tied to his
substance use, and [that the acquittee] failed to conform his
behavior appropriately in a supervised inpatient setting, the
[b]oard finds that [the acquittees] risk for a substance
abuse relapse in a nonsupervised setting without an
established ...