by Antoinnette Borbon
It was an interesting day today in Department 4, Judge David Rosenberg residing, to hear the state’s case for re-committing a defendant to Napa State Hospital.
Zacharius Kleinsasser was found not guilty for reasons of insanity back in 2003. In opening statements made by Deputy District Attorney Rob Gorman, he explained to the jurors they would be deciding on the facts and whether the state has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Kleinsasser is a danger to society.
He stated in his opening that it is the state’s obligation to prove three elements in order for jurors to come up with a verdict to keep the defendant in a state facility. One is the defendant has serious mental health issues, diagnosed; two, the defendant poses a danger to society; and three, the defendant cannot control his anger.
Mr. Gorman during his opening said that the defendant believed he had bombs in his body and would detonate them. He argued that these delusions posed a threat and were a danger to the community.
Mr. Gorman argued that, after listening to all the evidence in this case, jurors should listen to the suggestion of Dr. Skillie, who was the defendant’s doctor for a short period, and keep him in Napa. Gorman was rather brief in his opening.
In Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson’s opening, he began his discussion with the very reasons why the defendant had been placed in Napa State Hospital in the first place. Mr. Hutchinson told a story about a man, the defendant, who had been a counselor at the hospital and was assaulted so severely it caused great brain injury.
Mr. Hutchinson states it was after this that the defendant became unable to work, developing mental health issues. But at his own doing, Mr. Kleinsasser sought out help and was put on medication.
Mr. Hutchinson told jurors about a lawsuit the defendant filed against law enforcement for brutality, which was found to be factual from documentation.
It was later the defendant met a city councilman through his pastor, who also owned a business in town.
The defendant went into the business to extort a diamond ring for payment of the lawsuit.
Mr. Hutchinson stated the defendant made a threat to the councilman and left the building, only to return nine days later to make another threat for money. But the councilman told police he did not want to pursue any charges, but rather felt the defendant had mental health issues and requested a welfare check on Zacharius Kleinsasser.
In fact, Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that it was written in the police report that the city councilman did not believe the threats would be carried out.
It took five years to actually bring the defendant to trial, in which Zacharius Kleinsasser was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The judge in the case released him over to Atascadero for an evaluation.
While the defendant was there at Atascadero, the doctor who did the evaluation noted in his report, “The mental health disorder was caused by the defendant’s brain injury. The doctor went on to state he felt the defendant did not pose a threat or danger to society.
Once the evaluation was done, the defendant was sent to Napa State Hospital, where he has remained for the last 10 years. In the conclusion of Mr. Hutchinson’s closing, he stated the defendant has a 16-year track record of not hurting anyone, and it is time for Mr. Kleinsasser to go home.
The first witness for the prosecution’s case was Dr. Skillie from Napa State Hospital. Dr. Skillie described the defendant’s disorders.
Mr. Kleinsasser has been diagnosed as having schizophrenia and depression, and exhibits psychotic behavior. He stated during his interview with the defendant, the defendant talked about having a bomb planted inside his body which could be activated with 55 taps on his head.
Dr. Skillie talked about the treatment plans given and how, at one point, the defendant had been transitioned to a housing place – in between a jail and hospital, which determines if patients can adapt and be released on their own. But defendant Kleinsasser was denied discharge.
It was felt by Dr. Skillie that the defendant should be put on higher doses of his medications in order to be in better control of his delusional behavior, but the defendant refused.
In short, Dr. Skillie stated the defendant, if let out, could act out if he continues to believe he has bombs within him, and could therefore pose a danger to another and/or the community. He advised in his report that the defendant be kept under direct supervision.
But in cross-examination, Defense Attorney Dan Hutchinson asked just how long the defendant had been Dr. Skillie’s patient. The doctor stated only for a short time, around a year or so, and that he was not attending him at present.
Mr. Hutchinson also pointed out the police report, taken on the day of the incident with the councilman, to Dr. Skillie, asking, “Have you read this police report? And have you ever used any other written reports from doctors to conclude yours?”
Dr. Skillie stated, “No, I did not use any of the reports and yes, I believe I have read the police’s report.”
Mr. Hutchinson then asked the doctor if the defendant had ever assaulted anyone while in the hospital, and his answer was, “No.”
Dr. Skillie’s testimony will resume in the morning, in Department 4. The trial is estimated to be a short one.
Is there more to the story? You’re telling us that Mr. Kleinsasser was deemed not a danger to society but still remanded to a facility, apparently against his will? What was that original finding? Was he deemed a danger to himself?
Is he still a danger to himself?
It doesn’t sound much like he’s a violent person (physically), or a danger to the community, though he may well be a danger to himself, as getting into an altercation with the wrong person could well get him seriously injured or worse. Was his potential danger to himself discussed at the hearing at all? There are assisted living facilities, one in Davis, that have nonviolent people who are unable to live on their own, who have round the clock psychologists, etc. to care for them, though they live in their own apartments.
Was it discussed why he was denied discharge from the transition facility?
Either way, the poor guy…
Yesterday was only the first part of the trial. We’ll have more in a day or so.
David, the defendant in this case was originally found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). In these sorts of cases the defendant is sentenced to a term in custody of the state hospital. What I am unclear about is why he is now having a trial. Penal Code 1026 provides that an individual who has been found NGRI may sue to regain their sanity (an odd sort of thing, but that’s the way the law reads) but only after they have spent a period in a community program under supervision (CONREP). It does not appear from your story that Mr. K has spent any time in CONREP – in fact you mention he was denied discharge to a community program. So, what is the trial about and how did it come about? What’s the penal code section they are proceeding under?