Health officials ask senators to allow transfers to less‑restrictive settings after verdicts of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2077, which would amend procedures for criminal responsibility proceedings after a verdict or finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

Dr. Dan Kramer, clinical director at a human service center for the Department of Health and Human Services, testified in support of the bill and described it as a narrowly targeted change to section 12.1‑04.1‑21 of the North Dakota Century Code. Kramer said the proposal would allow the superintendent or director of the treatment facility to transfer an individual committed for up to a 90‑day post‑verdict examination to a less‑restrictive setting if the treating physician and the receiving facility agree and the superintendent determines it appropriate. The treatment facility would notify the court of the transfer and the reason for it.

Kramer told senators this would be used rarely: “In 2024, there were 23 total of these examinations completed,” he said, and “it would be an unusual rare number” of those that would fit the circumstance.

Supporters said the change would match placement to the patient’s clinical needs and preserve inpatient capacity for higher‑acuity cases. Kramer described situations where individuals had responded well to treatment during extended proceedings and could finish the examination period in a transitional or community residential program rather than at the North Dakota State Hospital; he said the change would also improve bed utilization.

Several senators pressed for safeguards and asked whether the proposal would exclude court review. Kramer said the amendment, as written, would not require a court petition and would not be a petition to the court, though the statute requires the facility to notify the court of a transfer. Committee members suggested language changes to preserve a role for the court or allow a quick judicial review when victims or prosecutors raised concerns. Kramer said the department would work with counsel if the committee wanted language that required the facility to seek court approval rather than only provide notice.

Ending: The bill drew questions focused on the balance between clinical judgment and court oversight. Supporters emphasized a narrow, clinical use for the transfer authority and noted small absolute numbers of post‑verdict examinations; several senators asked staff to consider amendments that would preserve a role for the court where public safety or victims’ interests might be implicated.