Fri Jul 25, 2008
Free Subscription

  
   
Search the Journal
 

 
Advanced Search

Journal Links
 

Return to Front Page
Table of Contents
About Us
Editorial Board
Call to Papers
Contact Us
Policies

 
My Account
 
Username:
Password:


Register - FREE
Account Help
 

Victim's Condition Measures Stalker's Danger
Volume 3, Issue 3 -- Published: Sunday, Jan 31, 1999 -- Last Updated: Monday, Mar 11, 2002

Email to a colleague Comment on article Bookmark article Copyright & reprint info

 by: Melinda Madison, J.D.
A convicted stalker, whose victim suffered from an illness therefore represented a threat to cause her bodily harm. Cooney had stalked one woman for approximately eight years. Expert psychiatric testimony demonstrated that Cooney suffered an erotomanic type of delusional disorder, leading him to believe his victim was in love with him. Prognosis for this type of disorder is poor, and there was a high likelihood that Cooney, if released, would continue to stalk the object of his delusion.
Cooney requested and received a 60-day psychiatric evaluation at a Montana State Hospital. The hospital psychiatrist testified that Cooney had already caused his victim emotional anguish, and that she feared for the safety of herself and her family. This fear led her into a self-imposed exile. According to this psychiatrist, as a result, the victim may be found to have a diagnosable psychiatric condition of her own, thus meaning that Cooney's release would pose an increased danger to the victim.

WHAT COONEY MEANS

In Montana, a victim's psychiatric illness qualifies as bodily harm when assessing risk.


Cooney, a convicted stalker, appealed the decision of the trial court, which found him incapable of handling release from custody of the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS). The trial court found that, if released, Cooney would create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to his victim. The appellate court agreed, holding that a Montana statute prevented Cooney's release on the grounds as stated by the trial court.
Although Cooney argued that the victim's possible psychiatric condition does not equate to a serious mental illness nor bodily injury, the court disagreed and acknowledged that by statutory definition a serious bodily injury includes a serious mental illness or impairment. To release Cooney from DPHHS custody would pose danger to the victim.
Although the insanity defense is not recognized in Montana, the court reached essentially the same conclusion as would have likely been reached by a court in a state that does recognize the insanity defense.

Feedback: What do you have to say?  |  Help: Get expert assistance for your own case

Return to the front page of The Forensic Echo now!

Terms of Use   |   Privacy Statement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 1996-2003 The Forensic Panel