D.B. had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was free from mental illness and dangerous propensities, or that he may safely be released on the conditions applied for. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 704-415(2) (2014); see State v. Miller, 84 Hawai'i 269, 275, 933 P.2d 606, 612 (1997). The circuit court decides whether the evidence establishes the requisite conditions for release. Id. at 279, 933 P.2d at 616.
[¶ 24] For these reasons, we conclude that requiring a "criminal acquittee" to rebut the inference or presumption of continuing mental illness and dangerousness by a preponderance of the evidence in a Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-306(f) discharge proceeding does not violate a "criminal acquittee's" state or federal due process guarantees. See also Hartman v. Summers, 878 F. Supp. 1335, 1341-44 (C.D.Cal. 1995), aff'd, 120 F.3d 157 (9th Cir. 1997); People v. Parrish, 879 P.2d 453, 457 (Colo.App. 1994); Hearne v. United States, 631 A.2d 52, 53-54 (D.C. 1993); Nagel v. State, 262 Ga. 888, 427 S.E.2d 490, 491-92 (1993), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1006 (1999); State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 933 P.2d 606, 610-12 (1997); Green v. Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 750 A.2d 1265, 1270-72 (Me. 2000); State v. Tooley, 875 S.W.2d 110, 112-14 (Mo. 1994); and State v. Platt, 143 Wn.2d 242, 19 P.3d 412, 415-17 (2001). Equal Protection
. Cf. State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 275, 933 P.2d 606, 612 (rejecting a due process challenge to a statute placing the burden, by preponderance of the evidence, upon the defendant to demonstrate recovery sufficient to justify release from commitment after an acquittal by reason of insanity), reconsideration denied, 84 Haw. 496, 936 P.2d 191 (1997).
State v. Dudley, 903 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Mo.App. W.D .1995) (citing State v. Ross, 795 S.W.2d 648, 650 ( Mo.App.1990 )). 84 Hawai‘i 269, 278–79, 933 P.2d 606, 615–16 (1997). Here, although there were conflicting opinions and testimony, there was substantial evidence to support the Circuit Court's determination that Ard continued to suffer from a mental disease and that he could not be released without danger to himself or others.
In State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 933 P.2d 606 (1997), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that HRS § 704-411(4) (1993), which places the burden on an insanity acquittee to establish his or her fitness to be released from a psychiatric facility by a preponderance of the evidence, did not violate due process. Id. at 275, 933 P.2d at 612.
Id. Equal Protection is analyzed similarly under the United States and Hawaii Constitutions. See State v. Miller, 84 Hawai`i 269, 933 P.2d 606, 613 (1997). That Honolulu Weekly is similarly situated to the charging publications subject to Article 15 is obvious.
10Equal Protection is analyzed similarly under the United States and Hawaii Constitutions.See State v. Miller, 933 P.2d 606, 613 (Haw. 1997). Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, we begin our analysis by determining the proper level of scrutiny to apply for review.
In considering whether his appeal was permissible under HRS § 641-11, the ICA observed several instances in which this court had “implicitly held” that orders regarding involuntary treatment and medication were “appealable orders.” Id. at 199-200 , 386 P.3d at 483-84 (citing Kotis, 91 Hawai'i 319 , 984 P.2d 78 (appeal of a pretrial involuntary order of medication); State v. Miller, 84 Hawai'i 269 , 933 P.2d 606 (1997) (appeal of an order denying petition for conditional release following acquittal on the ground of mental disease or disorder and commitment to state custody); State v. Burgo, 71 Haw. 198 , 787 P.2d 221 (1990) (appeal of an order revoking grant of conditional release following acquittal and commitment to state custody)). The Lawrence court additionally considered that a defendant found not guilty based on an insanity defense who was committed to the custody of the State may be subject to deprivation of liberty “for a prolonged, and indeed an indefinite, period of time.”
However, equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, but it does require that a distinction made have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.Miller, 84 Hawai`i 269, 276, 933 P.2d 606, 613 (1997) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "Whenever a denial of equal protection of the laws is alleged, as a rule our initial inquiry has been whether the legislation in question should be subjected to `strict scrutiny' or to a `rational basis' test."
Therefore, the summary disposition order should read: State v. Miller, 84 Haw. 269, 933 P.2d 606 (1997); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the court is directed to incorporate the foregoing change in the original summary disposition order.