Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Barnett v. State
Citations: 328 Ark. 246; 942 S.W.2d 860; 1997 Ark. LEXIS 244Docket: 96-1501
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 28, 1997; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Kevin Barnett was charged in 1992 with breaking and entering, theft, and a class A misdemeanor. After being diagnosed with schizophrenia, the State agreed to acquit him in the interest of justice. Following Act 911 of 1989, he was committed to the Director of Human Services for treatment and evaluation, with his case transferred to the Probate Court for future hearings. By August 1992, Barnett was found to have a mental disease but not a risk to himself or others, leading to his conditional release for five years under the supervision of the North Arkansas Human Services System. During his treatment, Barnett faced new charges, prompting the State to seek revocation of his release. The probate court granted this request in April 1993, resulting in his detention at the Arkansas State Hospital. After eloping and returning in December 1994, his diagnosis changed to polysubstance abuse and borderline intellectual functioning, leading to placement in drug treatment centers. On October 4, 1996, despite Barnett's objections, the probate court conditionally released him to the Hoover House. Barnett argued for discharge based on his changed diagnosis, asserting that the civil commitment statutes should apply. However, the probate court held a hearing under the relevant mental health statutes and concluded that Barnett had sufficiently recovered and posed no risk of harm. The court found no evidence of psychosis and noted his positive response to treatment. Barnett claimed the probate court erred in its application of the statutes, misinterpreting his diagnosis. However, the court's decision was supported by clear evidence, including testimony from Dr. Tom Kramer, who clarified that borderline intellectual functioning is considered a mental defect. Barnett did not provide contradicting evidence. Consequently, the court's order for Barnett's conditional release was affirmed.