| Foucha v. Louisiana | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 4, 1991 Decided May 18, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Terry Foucha v. State of Louisiana |
| Docket no. | 90-5844 |
| Citations | 504 U.S. 71 (more) 112 S. Ct. 1780; 118 L. Ed. 2d 437; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 2703 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Petitioner's writ denied in State Court of Appeals, denial affirmed in State Supreme Court |
| Holding | |
| Potential dangerousness is not a justification to commit a person found not guilty by reason of insanity if no mental illness is present. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White (Parts I, II), joined by O'Connor, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter |
| Plurality | White (Part III), joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Souter |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court addressed the criteria for the continued commitment of an individual who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The individual remained involuntarily confined on the justification that he was potentially dangerous even though he no longer suffered from the mental illness that served as a basis for his original commitment.[1]
- ^ Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
