State v. Kelly
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JOEL C. KELLY (AC 26001) Schaller, DiPentima and McLachlan, Js. Considered April 2 officially released June 5, 2007 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Mullarkey, J.) Richard E. Condon, Jr., assistant public defender, for the appellant (acquittee). John A. East III, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state s attorney, and Vicki Melchiorre, senior assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. This case was argued on January 6, 2006, and an opinion was published setting forth the relevant facts, procedural history and applicable law. See State v. Kelly, 95 Conn. App. 31, 895 A.2d 801 (2006). In that opinion, we remanded the case for an articulation of the court s basis for committing the acquittee, Joel C. Kelly, to the jurisdiction of the psychiatric security review board pursuant to General Statutes § 17a582 and, specifically, to state whether at the time of the commitment hearing the acquittee presented a danger to himself or to others because of his psychiatric disability. We retained jurisdiction over the appeal. The court filed its articulation on March 30, 2007. In its articulation, the court stated that on the basis of the evidence submitted at the commitment hearing, which included a written report and testimony of Mark S. Cotterell, a forensic psychiatrist employed at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital, where the acquittee was committed for initial evaluation and subsequent commitment, and supporting testimony from Peter M. Zeman, a psychiatrist with the Institute of Living Medical Group, P.C., it found that the acquittee had multiple mental health issues, had been resistant to his treatment program and lacked insight into his mental health issues. The court further stated that those findings supported its determination that the acquittee was a person who suffered from psychiatric disabilities and serious mental illness and presented a danger to others caused by his psychiatric disability. We conclude that the court properly determined that the acquittee presented a danger to himself or to others because of his psychiatric disability, pursuant to § 17a582, and therefore we find no plain error. The judgment, as clarified by the trial court s articulation filed on March 30, 2007, is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
