Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rules no supervised releases for mental patient

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 6, 2014

The 11th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas’ denial of a defendant’s request to decrease his level of supervision at a mental health care facility.

The defendant, James Hubbard, is being held at Heartland Behavioral Healthcare Hospital and has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.

Hubbard was indicted in 1991 by the Trumbull County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated murder and one count of attempted murder for the shooting death of Sallie Beaty and the attempted murder of Lori Kirkwood.

He had opened fire on the women while they were sitting in their cars.

In 1993, Hubbard was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to the Timothy B. Moritz Center in Columbus.

Six years later, he was transferred to Heartland.

Last year, the medical director of Heartland wrote a letter to the Trumbull County court requesting a “change in the conditions of the commitment to a less restrictive status.”

Specifically, the director asked that Hubbard’s supervision be changed from a Level III plan to a Level IV plan, which would allow Hubbard to leave the health care center’s grounds for certain periods of time under strict supervision.

In July 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the matter where only one witness testified.

Dr. Stephen Noffsinger told the trial court that he had been involved with monitoring Hubbard since March 2013.

According to the doctor, Hubbard’s psychosis is in relative remission.

In a report dated April 3, 2013, Noffsinger wrote that Hubbard “has not experienced any psychotic symptoms, such as paranoid delusions or hallucinations, that have substantially impacted his behavior.”

“While he maintains some mild suspicions about others, he has not acted on his suspicions and he has no plans or intent to harm others based on psychotic motives,” Noffsinger wrote.

Additionally, the doctor noted that Hubbard has been nonviolent for “a substantial period of time” and he is at low risk for future violence.

He stated that the entirety of Hubbard’s treatment team concurred in recommending the supervision level change.

On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Noffsinger about Hubbard’s previous noncompliance with receiving medication.

The state also consulted notes from Hubbard’s record, one of which was repeatedly entered: “Patient does not appear to have any delusions or hallucinations on the surface. However, because of his offering very little, it is hard to say.”

Beginning in November 2012, Hubbard’s doctors often noted that Hubbard does not believe he has a mental illness and that he is convinced his medications do not help.

In January 2013, seven months before the hearing, Hubbard became “guarded” when asked about his paranoia and told his doctors that he felt his offense was not related to mental illness. He continued to be skeptical about treatment.

“In April 2013, Hubbard continued to deny that he was mentally ill or that he benefited from his medication and offered that he was not ill at the time he committed the murder, but rather, that he ‘felt threatened and overreacted,’” wrote Judge Diane Grendell in the opinion she wrote on behalf of the court of appeals.

For a year prior to that incident, Hubbard had refused to sign his consent to treatment plan.

“Dr. Noffsinger acknowledged that Hubbard’s claim that his crimes were not the result of mental illness would be a concern if Hubbard were being released, but not a concern for Level IV as the patient remains under constant supervision,” wrote Judge Grendell.

The court of appeals pointed out that the Level IV plan prepared by Heartland is intended for a patient who “has a reasonable expectation of being able to return to live in the community in the future.”

Under that plan, an employee of Heartland, not necessarily medical or security personnel, would escort anywhere from one to three patients off the hospital grounds.

After considering Noffsinger’s testimony and Hubbard’s medical record, the trial court denied the request to grant Level IV supervision.

On appeal, the 11th District’s three-judge appellate panel sided with the lower court.

Hubbard contended that the trial court did not have enough evidence to conclude that a change in his supervision status represented a threat to public safety.

“We disagree,” wrote Judge Grendell. “It is well-established that any reemergence of Hubbard’s mental illness could be potentially lethal and violent.”

Though Noffsinger testified that Hubbard was in remission, the court of appeals ruled that there was “considerable evidence” that Hubbard concealed his actual mental condition and that his compliance was “not an indication of progress but rather, a desire for greater freedom.”

Judge Grendell cited the fact that Hubbard openly denied his mental illness and refused his medication with his regular doctors.

But, when Noffsinger evaluated Hubbard in preparation for the hearing, Hubbard became compliant.

The appellate panel pointed to the “episodic nature” of Hubbard’s schizophrenia and joined the trial court in ruling that the staff who would supervise Hubbard under Level IV supervision “is not the staff the court considers to be security oriented enough to protect citizens if the episodes came back in such a nature to be as violent as the first episode.”

Finding no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, the court of appeals affirmed its decision to deny Hubbard’s request for less restrictive supervision.

Presiding Judge Timothy Cannon and Judge Thomas Wright concurred.

The case is cited State v. Hubbard, 2014-Ohio-4130.

[Back]