State v. Foster (Concurrence)

Summary

Justice Ecker concurred in part and concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the record was barely sufficient under deferential review to sustain continued commitment while criticizing much of the trial court's reasoning. The concurrence explains that continued commitment requires clear and convincing proof that the acquittee is currently mentally ill and imminently dangerous because of that illness, and that generalized fears, stale conduct, or socially inappropriate behavior are insufficient. It also emphasizes that the state retains the burden of proof and identifies three predictive questions that should guide future proceedings.