State v. Lafferty
Connecticut Supreme Court
456 A.2d 272 (1982)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Alexander Lafferty (defendant) was charged by the state of Connecticut (plaintiff) with two counts of larceny in the first degree for embezzlement from his employer. At trial, Lafferty raised the defense of insanity, arguing that at the time of the alleged crime he was unable to conform his conduct to the law because of his compulsive gambling behavior. Based on psychiatric testimony, the trial court ruled in Lafferty’s favor, finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. Pursuant to Connecticut law, Lafferty was then ordered committed to a state mental hospital pending a determination of whether his release would constitute a danger to himself or others. During the subsequent hearing to determine whether Lafferty should be released, both Lafferty and the state presented expert testimony. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held that Lafferty was not a danger to himself or others, ordering his release. The state appealed, arguing that the statutory reference to a danger to the defendant’s self or others did not mean only physical danger, but also danger to property. The state argued that the trial court’s findings supported such a conclusion and, therefore, Lafferty should not have been ordered released. In response, Lafferty argued that the trial court found that he was only possibly a danger to property and that property damage was not included within the relevant statute.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.