State v. Narcisse

── State v. Narcisse ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 09, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  State v. Narcisse STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MARVIN NARCISSE (AC 48257) Cradle, C. J., and Moll and Westbrook, Js. Syllabus The acquittee appealed from the trial court’s judgment denying his applica- tion for discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board pursuant to statute (§ 17a-593). He claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly found that he was diagnosed with unspecified bipolar disorder. Held: The trial court’s finding that the acquittee suffers from a mental illness was not clearly erroneous, as the court was presented with evidence that could lead a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that the acquittee suffered from unspecified bipolar disorder. The trial court’s conclusion that the acquittee presented a danger to himself or to society was not clearly erroneous, as it was supported by evidence in the record and this court was not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made. Argued February 2—officially released June 9, 2026 Procedural History Application for discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Bridgeport and tried to the court, Dayton, J.; judgment denying the application, from which the acquittee appealed to this court. Affirmed. James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (acquittee). Jonathan M. Sousa, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph Corradino, state’s attor- ney, and Jonathan Formichella, deputy assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion WESTBROOK, J. The acquittee,1 Marvin Narcisse, also known as Delmar Rose, appeals from the judgment 1 Pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-580 (1), the term “acquittee” refers to a defendant who was found not guilty by reason of mental  State v. Narcisse of the trial court denying his application for discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board) in accordance with General Statutes § 17a-593 (a).2 On appeal, the acquittee claims that the court improperly (1) found that he was diagnosed with “severe personality disorder” and unspecified bipolar disorder and (2) concluded that he failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his psychiatric disabilities, if any, do not cause him to be a danger to himself or others. We disagree and, acco