Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hauck Ruling (139576)

    Uploaded by

    KUTV 2News
    6K views15 pages
    Judge rules man who killed mother, put body in freezer won't be released from state hospital

    Original Title

    Hauck Ruling[139576]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Judge rules man who killed mother, put body in freezer won't be released from state hospital

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6K views15 pages

    Hauck Ruling (139576)

    Uploaded by

    KUTV 2News
    Judge rules man who killed mother, put body in freezer won't be released from state hospital

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    | FILE NOV 1 § 2029 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DAVI} CORRS ON nr FARMINGTON DEPARTMENT, STATE OF UTAH STATE OF UTAH, RULING AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. ‘Case No. 061701179 JEREMY HAUCK, Judge Ronald G. Russell Defendant, ‘This matter is before the Court for review after commitment of defendant Jeremy Hauck at the Utah State Hospital (“USH”). USH seeks the Court’s approval of a proposed conditional refease plan that would permit Mr. Hauck to move to and reside in an apartment outside of the USH campus while continuing to be treated and supervised by USH. Mr. Hauck is currently treated and supervised by USH as a resident patient with release privileges. ‘The Court held a hearing on USH’s request on September 30, 2022, Mr. Hauck was represented at the hearing by Todd A. Utzinger. The State of Utah was represented by Gage Amold. Prior to the hearing, the Court received and reviewed USH’s April 21, 2022, clinical review report containing the proposed conditional refease plan. The Court also reviewed the Defendant's Memorandum in Advance of Conditional Release Hearing, including records submitted under seal concerning Mr. Hauck’s treatment and activities at the USH, Mr. Hauck called the following witnesses at the hearing: Dr. Paul Whitehead, Allison Shiffler, Jeremy Hauck and Greg Porter. The State of Utah cross-examined Mr. Hauck’s witnesses but did not call any witnesses to testy. The State submitted to the Court 37 exhibits, which included photographs of the original crime scene and other evidence relating to the crime, After the hearing, Mr. Hauck filed a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Proposed Terms of Requested 1 Conditional Release dated October 11, 2022. The Supplemental Memorandum suggests conditions in addition to those contained in USH’s April 21, 2022, proposed plan, ‘The Court directed the State of Utah and the Utah State Hospital to file a response to Mr. Hauck’s Supplemental Memorandum, On October 24, 2022, the Utah Department of Health and Human Services and the Utah State Hospital filed a Response to Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Proposed Terms of Requested Conditional Release. ‘The State of Utah filed an Objection to Defendant’s Proposed Terms of Requested Conditional Release ‘on October 26, 2022. Mr. Hauck filed a Reply to Davis County’s “Objection to Defendant’s Proposed ‘Terms of Requested Conditional Release” dated October 28, 2022. The matter having been fully briefed, the Court having considered the evidence, argument and submissions of the parties and the record in this case, issues the following Ruling and Order. I, FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. History of the Case ‘On August 5, 2006, Mr. Hauck, then 18, killed his mother Laura Hauck by shooting her in the head and slitting her throat. He then dragged her lifeless body to the garage in their home where he stuffed the ody into a chest freezer, The pictures of the crime scene graphically depict an extremely violent killing, (State’s Exhibits 6-22.) The medical examiner concluded that the 51-year-old Laura Hauck “died of multiple gunshot wounds to the head,” and “a deep incised wound across the anterior and lateral neck with complete transection of both right and left jugular veins.” (State’s Exhibit 3.) Mr. Hauck testified at the September 30, 2022, hearing, without emotion and noticeably twitching during his testimony, providing his account of what caused him to kill his mother. He stated that he remembers the details of the events. According to Mr. Hauek, he began to have auditory hallucinations during the latter part of high school, The hallucinations included a “data stream” in his head with voices that connected him to an “alien intelligence” he referred to as “the source.” Mr. Hauck testified that he believed at the time that “the source” told him his mother had been replaced by a “replicant” whose task was to kill him. “The source” instructed him to kill the “replicant” before it could kill him. After killing his mother, he put her 2 body in the freezer to prevent the “replicant” from “regenerating,” In addition to the .22 caliber rifle Mr. Hauck used to shoot his mother, he acquired a shotgun and an AR-style rifle along with ammunition, He went to a local motel after killing his mother and then drove north to Montana where he was subsequently arrested. Mr. Hauck acknowledged that he was fascinated with violent video content he downloaded from the internet and collected. A few months before the homicide, Mr. Hauck wrote a letter as part of school assignment in which he stated, in part: Ihave no friends, nor do I desire any. I would rather be fed into a wood chipper than socialize with any of the pathetic inhabitants of this planet. Hopefully in the future such emphasis on ‘human contact had faded, however, I realize that this is extremely unlikely. Society even goes as far as to say that I have a psychological disorder. Needless to say taking the lives of these pathetic denizens provides me with great pleasure. Beyond that I spend my time doing very litle, Currently television programs I enjoy are House M.D, and Lost. I can identify quite closely with Dr. House, I also spend much of my time researching various interests. Weapons, torture, psychology, pathology, serial killers, I am told I fit the profile of the latter quite nicely. (State's Exhibit 2.) ‘Mr. Hauck was admitted to the USH Forensic Unit on April 3, 2008, initially because he was found not competent to stand trial on charges of First Degree Murder and Theft, The Court ordered that ‘Mr. Hauck be involuntarily medicated in order to restore competency. For purposes of determining, ‘competency to stand trial, two court appointed examiners evaluated Mr. Hauck. The examiners determined evidence of psychotic symptoms and “concems were noted as to potential callousness and ‘ongoing ‘hatred? of people, fascination with death, exaggeration of symptoms and potential dimensions of psychopathy, “(USH Clinical Review after Commitment dated May 20, 2021, at 2.) The Court subsequently determined that Mr. Hauck’s competency was restored. On March 4, 2013, the Court found ‘Mr. Hauck not guilty of First Degree Murder by reason of insanity. The Court committed Mr. Hauck to ‘the USH finding by clear and convincing evidence that he (1) had a mental illness and (2) was & substantial danger to himself or others, pursuant to Utah Code Ann, §77-162-302(2) (2011). Mr, Hauck hhas been in the USH since his commitment, ‘Mr. Hauck has been diagnosed as having Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, as well as Autistic Disorder, USH has presented to the Court Clinical Reviews after Commitment every six months as required by Utah Code Ann. §77-163-304(4)(4X1). In May 2019, USH’s report proposed that Mr. Hauck was a candidate for discharge from commitment. However, on October 9, 2019, USH submitted a Proposed Plan for Conditional Release concluding that “on further review of the statutory framework, and as per our understanding of 77-16(a)-304(4)(4), there is reasonable medical probability that without continued medication Mr. Hauck’s mental illness will reoccur, potentially making him a substantial danger to self or others.” (USH Proposed Plan for Conditional Release dated October 9, 2019, at 1.) The October 2019 report proposed that Mr. Hauck would reside in Washington state with his father and stepmother for a transitional period prior to consideration for more independent living, with continued ‘treatment by an outside medical provider. USH conducted another Clinical Review after Commitment reflected in its May 20, 2021 report, filed with the Court under a cover letter dated June 10, 2021. The June 2021 report provided an update, again recommending conditional release for Mr. Hauck to reside in Washington state with his father and stepmother, with continuing clinical care by an outside provider in Washington state, Hearings were not held on the Washington conditional release proposals due to the inability of the Washington provider to accept Mr. Hauck as a patient during the COVID-19 pandemic, USH subsequently withdrew the Washington conditional release proposal because the identified outside provider was unable to commit to accepting Mr. Hauck into their system and according to USH, the provider subsequently closed entirely. Efforts by USH to contact another potential Washington provider were unsuccessful USH conducted another review reflected in its Clinical Review after Commitment dated April 21, 2022, In the April 2022 report, the review committee found that Mr. Hauck “is still mentally il, but his ‘mental illness can be controlled adequality with proper care, medication, supervisor, and treatment if conditionally released with treatment as a condition of release.” The report submitted with this recommendation proposed a nine-point plan, which would permit Mr. Hauck to find a place to live in ‘Utah County outside the USH campus and secure employment, with USH continuing to provide treatment and supervision, Under this proposal, the “plan would be expected to evolve over time, depending on the situation with Washington State and their willingness to accept” Mr. Hauck. (USH Clinical Review after ‘Commitment dated April 21, 2022, at 9.) The proposed plan would require Mr. Hauck to continue ‘medication to control his mental illness with random checks, and would put Mr. Hauck in control of his ‘medication. The proposal states that Mr. Hauck “will independently manage his medications via a 30-day supply from the Utah State Hospital.” (Id, at 8.) Based on concerns raised at the September 30, 2022, hearing, Mr, Hauck filed a supplemental memorandum on October 11, 2022, suggesting conditions in addition to those proposed by USH, including monthly random blood draws to ensure that he is taking his ‘medication, telephone check-in calls to USH hospital staff, in person meetings with the USH Director and Mr. Hauck’s physician, random searches by USH Campus Police, travel restrictions and other conditions not contained in USH’s proposed conditional release plan. The State of Utah responded to the supplemental memorandum arguing that “[tJhere are no iterations of the Defendant’s conditional release proposal that will ensure the Defendant will not become violent again” and that “t]he Court should not trade its current reality of supervision at the USH for the future sion of supervision.” B. The Evidentiary Hearing ‘The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on USH’s conditional release proposal on September 30, 2022. Dr. Whitehead was the primary witness presented by Mr. Hauck. Dr. Whitehead testified, ‘among other things, that he is employed at the USH and has been Mr. Hauck’s psychiatrist. He provided details about Mr, Hauck’s diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia and Autism, the “data stream” and Mr. ‘Hauck’s conduct while at the USH. Dr. Whitehead testified that Mr. Hauck’s Schizophrenia is a mental illness that will never go away but can be controlled by medication, He conceded that the “data stream” that caused Mr. Hauck to act out violently and kill his mother is still there, although the symptoms have been reduced. Dr. Whitehead stated that Mr. Hauck continues to talk to himself, grimaces and sometimes ‘comes across as hostile, which may be the result of medication side effects and/or Autism, but does not believe this to be a danger. Dr. Whitehead detaited Mr, Hauck’s accomplishments successfully going on unsupervised day in the community with green pass privileges, attending on-line BYU classes and ‘obtaining certificates through schooling off the USH campus at Mountain Land Technical College, among ‘other successes. In Dr. Whitchead’s opinion, Mr. Hauck does not present a danger so long as his symptoms continue to be’controlled through taking medication. On cross examination, Dr. Whitehead testified that without medication Mr. Hauck’s psychotic symptoms could return, He also appeared to the Court to be uncertain as to whether conditional release will result in stresses that may impact Mr. Hauck’s condition. Dr. Whitehead indicated that Mr, Hauck’s symptoms may begin to reappear if he is off of his medication after a week or more. USH has only been doing blood tests once a year, according to Dr. Whitehead, due to limited public health funding. Regarding USH’s ability to do searches of an off- ‘campus residence, Dr. Whitehead said that it could be done by the USH’s four campus police officers or Provo Police. Regarding whether such supervision had been done in the past by the campus police or Provo Police for other patients, Dr. Whitehead said that there had not been a patient conditionally released from the USH in the past 20 years. Allison Shiffler testified that she started working at the USH in 2017 as a social worker. She described weekly excursions she went on with Mr. Hauck into the community for two years. She stated that she received no complaints regarding his behavior from anyone in the community, that in her opinion ‘Mr. Hauck was the most stable patient in USH?s forensic unit, that his success story of treatment is remarkable and that she is absolutely in favor of Mr. Hauck’s conditional release. Ms. Shiffler talked about specific instances during her interactions with Mr. Hauck and testified that she believes he is safe, ‘Mr. Hauck testified that he understood the purpose for the hearing. He recounted the events leading up to his killing of his mother, the killing itself, including the “data stream,” “the source,” and the ‘events that occurred after he killed his mother. He conceded that there is still a static in the back of his ‘mind, and stated that he is able to ignore it. Mr. Hauck described the process of how he receives his medication at the USH—he stands in line with other patients each day, the medication is dispensed to him by USH personnel, and they watch him take it. Mr. Hauck indicated in his direct testimony that he would comply with any conditions that may be placed on him by the Court if he is released. On cross examination, Mr. Hauck admitted that he has the capacity for hyper lence if he is off his medi Greg Porter testified that he works at the USH. He worked with Mr. Hauck as a social worker and is now over five administrative units. He has been at the USH since Mr. Hauck was first admitted, In his direct examination, Mr. Porter testified that Mr. Hauck has made substantial progress during his time at the USH. Mr. Porter testified that conditional release terms should be carefully articulated, and that ‘USH has gone slowly and incrementally in the past while treating Mr. Hauck. Mr. Porter does not believe Ms, Hauck to be a danger if advances are made incrementally, that Mr. Hauck needs to prove himself ‘every step of the way and that Mr. Hauck has shown himself to be safe in the community. Mr. Porter stated that violent entertainment if accessed by Mr. Hauck causes him concems, although he believes that violent behavior would be unlikely. C, Treatment Records ‘The Court has carefully reviewed the USH treatment records provided under seal. The records were presented in segregated categories distilled by Mr. Hauck's counsel, During Mr. Hauck’s 14 years at USH, mental health and medical professionals have monitored Mr. Hauck’s treatment and progress. Most ‘of the reports document daily activities and reflect Mr. Hauck’s progress from his initial admission and his progress, Focusing on the more recent reports, the Court did find some of the notes to be very ‘concerning. For example, certain of the reports indicated that Mr. Hauck enjoys watching violent media, ‘On one occasion, he researched Ted Bundy because he said the topic came up in a class or group discussion. ‘Then reports discuss instances or anger or rage where Mr. Hauck is talking to unseen persons and mouthing swear words. On September 30, 2021, the noted reflect that “Jeremy reported intense rage due to his hearing being cancelled.” (Psychiatry Data Note 10/05/2021 Control No. 026857.) Notes dated July 13, 2022, state that Mr. Hauck “appeared to be getting frustrated” “began to twitch more than normal and appeared to be mouthing swear words directed at the tech in the tank” concluding that he 7 “appeared to be getting angry towards staff.” (Psych Tech Birp Note 07/13/2022 Control No. 027965.) Mr. Hauck argues that through years of treatment, he better understands how to keep his emotions in check, but the Court is troubled by many of the treatment notes and observations of Mr. Hauck’s concerning behaviors. D, April 21, 2022 Clinical Review After Commitment USH prepared and submitted to the Court its Clinical Review After Commitment dated April 21, 2022 (the “Report”). ‘The Report contains sections covering Background Information regarding Mr. Hauck and his treatment; Update, Summary and Rick Assessment; and Recommendations. ‘The Background Information section covers Mr. Hauck’s admission to the USH, noting previous reviews and information reviewed in preparing the report. The Report states: Past NGRI_ [Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity] reviews have noted significant improvements in terms of psychotic symptoms, which remain low or absent for years and do not appear to significantly impact his interpretation of environment or behavior, and which he neither misses nor finds in any way interesting or exciting. The Eisner NGRI Readiness to Return to Community Scale, the HCR-20 Risk Assessment, and related risk assessments, and information germane to returning patients to the community and related risk issues, are regularly reviewed prior to NGRI reports (USH Clinical Review after Commitment dated April 21,2022, at 2.) Although this reference is made to Eisner and HCR-20 risk assessments, the Report does not indicate how these assessments were used or which factors were considered by the team and how the factors were applied in making the risk assessment. The Update, Summary and Rick Assessment section of the Report observes that Mr. Hauck has continued to function well since his last NGRI review in May of 2021, noting a number of positive developments. The Report notes that Mr. Hauck’s “previously impairing psychotic symptoms remain in remission and do not appear to impact his behavior.” Id. at 3. The update references that Mr. Hauck reported he has experienced “rage” about certain issues, which he “contextualized as venting and frustration.” It also notes that Mr, Hauck “did exhibit some terscness with nursing staff on several occasions.” Aer describing stressors and frustrations experienced by Mr. Hauck as a result of conditions 8 during the COVID-19 pandemic, “[d]uring the past four months, he has improved back to baseline in terms of attitude, participation and hopefulness.” Id. Regarding the team’s risk assessment, the Report states: In terms of risk assessment and management, Jeremy is currently viewed as representing a low risk of violence. The arrest episode appears the confluence of delusional beliefs, loss of intact reasoning, lack of knowledge of mental illness, impaired empathy and social skill, strong emotional reactions; research also indicates a heightened risk of violence at the time of the “first episode” of psychosis, as well as the central emotion of “anger” in the context of persecutory delusions. . . . Potential future destabilizers include risk of non-adherence to treatment and associated amplified symptoms and diminished insight, limited number of long-term relationships, and any tendency to avoid social influences that may serve as checks and balances. In terms of specific recommendations in addition to close clinical monitoring, occasional random blood draws to confirm medication adherence, regular input from family and employers, and urine toxicology tests, would be indicated. ‘While not rising to a level to interrupt the current recommendation, areas of continued monitoring include Jeremy's tendency to talk to himself while on the unit—occasionally in animated fashion or even appearing mildly angry. . . . Although these incidents have occurred intermittently throughout much of hospitalization, continued detailed discussions with Jeremy indicate they are unrelated to any psychotic phenomena; . . . 1d, at 5-6 (emphasis added). IL. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard After a person has been found not guilty by reason of insanity and is committed to the USH, Utah Code Ann. 877-1 -304(1) provides that the executive director “shall establish a review team of at least three qualified staff members to review the defendant's mental condition at least every six months.” If the review team finds that the defendant has recovered from the mental illness, or no longer presents a substantial danger, the director is required to notify the court that the defendant is eligible for discharge. Ifthe review team finds that the defendant is not eligible for discharge under §77-16-a-304, the defendant may be eligible for conditional release. Utah Code Ann, §77-16a-304(b) states: (b) The court shall order the person conditionally released in accordance with Section 77-16a-305 if the court finds that the defendant: has a mental illness; ii) _is a substantial danger to self or others; and Gi) can be controlled adequately if conditionally released with treatment as a condition of release. ‘The defendant focuses on the word “shall” in §77-16a-304(b) as mandating the Court to grant conditional release if it makes the three findings listed there. The language, however, states that the court “shall” order conditional release “in accordance with Section 77-16a-305” if the court makes the three required findings. Section 77-16a-305, provides that if the “review team finds that a defendant is not ‘eligible for discharge, in accordance with Section 77-16a-304, but that his mental illness and

    You might also like