State v. Lake

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Mahaffey

    140 Ohio App. 3d 396 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times
    Noting change in statute after Johnson

    The state also contends that the burden of proof requirement does not apply to this case because the recommendation for increased movement privileges does not constitute a recommendation for a "less restrictive status" as described in R.C. 2945.40.1(G)(2). The state cites State v. Lake (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 275, for the proposition that the least restrictive commitment alternative relates to the choice of commitment facility, but not to particular units or wards within a facility. By its terms, R.C. 2945.40.1(D)(1) specifically applies to recommendations for "on-grounds unsupervised movement."

  2. State v. Morris

    518 N.W.2d 664 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 1 times

    In State v. Bruton, 27 Ohio App.3d 362, 501 N.E.2d 651 (1985), the clear and convincing standard was applied by the trial court when it refused a less restrictive environment, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. In State v. Lake, 33 Ohio App.3d 275, 515 N.E.2d 960 (1986), the same court held that the least restrictive alternative requirement applied only to transfers between facilities and not between wards of the same facility. With the conflicting holdings of its Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the clear and convincing evidence standard again in State v. Johnson, 32 Ohio St.3d 109, 512 N.E.2d 652 (1987).

  3. State v. Traywick

    72 Ohio App. 3d 674 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times
    In State v. Traywick, 72 Ohio App.3d 674, 595 N.E.2d 986 (1991), the trial court refused to order a conditional release of the acquittee to a residential facility as recommended by the staff of the institution where the acquittee was confined.

    Once a trial court has ordered commitment of a criminal defendant found not guilty by reasons of insanity, the court's continuing jurisdiction is limited to decisions regarding a discharge, a conditional release, a trial visit, or a transfer; the court has no supervisory powers over the details of a patient's confinement or treatment. State v. Lanzy (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 244, 248, 29 OBR 306, 310, 504 N.E.2d 1150, 1154; State v. Lake (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 275, 277, 515 N.E.2d 960, 962. Thus, the court has no jurisdiction to regulate general visitation, as opposed to trial visitation.