{ "id": 4170677, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL CHARLES HAYES, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "In re Hayes", "decision_date": "2009-08-18", "docket_number": "No. COA08-894", "first_page": "69", "last_page": "85", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "199 N.C. App. 69" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "657 S.E.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640450 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1)" }, { "page": "364", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. R 2" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 U.S. 715", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6173472 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "738" }, { "page": "451" }, { "page": "1858" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/406/0715-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 U.S. 71", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11727947 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" }, { "page": "452" }, { "page": "1789" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/504/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E.2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353", "parenthetical": "holding that statutes should be construed to avoid \"conflict with the superior voice of the Constitution\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574036 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526", "parenthetical": "holding that statutes should be construed to avoid \"conflict with the superior voice of the Constitution\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 U.S. 354", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6195188 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "368", "parenthetical": "\"The purpose of commitment following an insanity acquittal, like that of civil commitment, is to treat the individual's mental illness and protect him and society from his potential dangerousness.\"" }, { "page": "708", "parenthetical": "\"The purpose of commitment following an insanity acquittal, like that of civil commitment, is to treat the individual's mental illness and protect him and society from his potential dangerousness.\"" }, { "page": "3051-52", "parenthetical": "\"The purpose of commitment following an insanity acquittal, like that of civil commitment, is to treat the individual's mental illness and protect him and society from his potential dangerousness.\"" }, { "page": "368" }, { "page": "708" }, { "page": "3052" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/463/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122-58.13", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "repealed 1985" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 S.E.2d 578", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4704065, 4701641, 4702228, 4700665, 4699804 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0194-03", "/nc/316/0194-05", "/nc/316/0194-04", "/nc/316/0194-01", "/nc/316/0194-02" ] }, { "cite": "336 S.E.2d 682", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "684" }, { "page": "684" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.C. App. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520349 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204" }, { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/78/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564204 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 S.E.2d 594", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595", "parenthetical": "\" 'The words and phrases of a statute must be interpreted contextually,' and read in a manner which effectuates the legislative purpose.\" (quoting In re Kirkman, 302 N.C. 164, 167, 273 S.E.2d 712, 715 (1981))" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12139688 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "705", "parenthetical": "\" 'The words and phrases of a statute must be interpreted contextually,' and read in a manner which effectuates the legislative purpose.\" (quoting In re Kirkman, 302 N.C. 164, 167, 273 S.E.2d 712, 715 (1981))" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122-67", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122-86", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Persons acquitted of crime on account of mental illness; how discharged from hospital.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 S.E.2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "718", "parenthetical": "\"In seeking to discover and give effect to the legislative intent, an act must be considered as a whole, and none of its provisions shall be deemed useless or redundant if they can reasonably be considered as adding something to the act which is in harmony with its purpose.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573594 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "19-20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S.E.2d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "7" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560662 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 S.E.2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698", "parenthetical": "\"It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that sections and acts in pari materia, and all parts thereof, should be construed together and compared with each other.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624853 ], "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610", "parenthetical": "\"It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that sections and acts in pari materia, and all parts thereof, should be construed together and compared with each other.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "432 S.E.2d 310", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "313" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2531487 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 S.E.2d 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5307411 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 S.E.2d 490", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "491", "parenthetical": "\"It is presumed that no meaningless or useless words or provisions are used in a statute, but that each word or provision is to be given some effect.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 N.C. App. 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547743 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106", "parenthetical": "\"It is presumed that no meaningless or useless words or provisions are used in a statute, but that each word or provision is to be given some effect.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/31/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S.E.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86", "parenthetical": "holding that where statute or ordinance contains multiple terms or requirements, it is presumed that \"none of them is a mere repetition of the others\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558203 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167", "parenthetical": "holding that where statute or ordinance contains multiple terms or requirements, it is presumed that \"none of them is a mere repetition of the others\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E.2d 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "119" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568737 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E.2d 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573048 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" }, { "page": "618-19" }, { "page": "619" }, { "page": "617" }, { "page": "618" }, { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 358", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4716443 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "578" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "5", "parenthetical": "electing to suspend appellate rules under Rule 2 to consider plaintiff's dismissed claim where record reflected parties and trial court operated under \"erroneous[] assumption]\" regarding statute of limitations" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2509850 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576", "parenthetical": "electing to suspend appellate rules under Rule 2 to consider plaintiff's dismissed claim where record reflected parties and trial court operated under \"erroneous[] assumption]\" regarding statute of limitations" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4149183 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "195", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1)" }, { "page": "196" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 680", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511246, 1511187, 1511549, 1511158, 1511421 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0613-01", "/nc/356/0613-03", "/nc/356/0613-04", "/nc/356/0613-05", "/nc/356/0613-02" ] }, { "cite": "564 S.E.2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9079077 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9495984 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 S.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530475, 2528180, 2529591, 2530814, 2529279 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0173-05", "/nc/335/0173-04", "/nc/335/0173-02", "/nc/335/0173-03", "/nc/335/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "432 S.E.2d 862", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522159 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0384-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1440, "char_count": 41326, "ocr_confidence": 0.751, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.11168273806756e-07, "percentile": 0.5708502696489255 }, "sha256": "a7685fc4a3ab4d9f87f448100baa1ff9a5a92f008daa03057b86d3395e3f3383", "simhash": "1:1bcb7966d63e24d4", "word_count": 6680 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:19:28.879345+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ROBERT C. HUNTER and STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL CHARLES HAYES, Respondent" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GEER, Judge.\n. Respondent Michael Charles Hayes was found not guilty by reason of insanity following a murder trial. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1321(b) (2007), he was involuntarily committed to a state mental health facility. Since then, the trial courts have recommitted him following each recommitment hearing. In this appeal, he challenges the trial court\u2019s 1 October 2007 order again recommitting him to involuntary inpatient treatment for a period not to exceed 365 days. He argues (1) that the trial court erred in failing to consider a conditional release as a dispositional option and (2) that the evidence did not support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact and conclusions of law that respondent failed to prove he was no longer dangerous to others as defined by North Carolina law.\nIt is apparent from the record that the trial court believed its only options following the hearing were either to recommit Hayes to Dorothea Dix Hospital or to unconditionally release him. Because the trial court was unaware that it had the option of conditionally releasing Hayes, it made its findings of fact and conclusions of law under a misapprehension of the law. We, therefore, reverse the 1 October 2007 order and remand for reconsideration in light of the availability of a conditional release as a potential disposition.\nFacts\nIn 1988, Hayes was charged with four counts of first degree murder, five counts of felonious assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of assault on a law enforcement officer. Hayes was found not guilty by reason of insanity of all the charges and was involuntarily committed to a state mental health facility pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1321(b). Since his initial commitment, Hayes has had annual recommitment hearings under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.1 (2007). Each time, the trial court has ordered Hayes\u2019 recommitment. Hayes has appealed several of the recommitment orders, all of which were upheld by this Court. See In re Hayes, 111 N.C. App. 384, 432 S.E.2d 862, appeal dismissed, 335 N.C. 173, 436 S.E.2d 376 (1993); In re Hayes, 139 N.C. App. 114, 532 S.E.2d 553 (2000); In re Hayes, 151 N.C. App. 27, 564 S.E.2d 305, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 613, 574 S.E.2d 680 (2002). Prior to the hearing giving rise to this appeal, Hayes\u2019 last contested recommitment hearing was in January 2001.\nOn 11 September 2007, Hayes\u2019 treating physician at Dorothea Dix Hospital, Dr. Reem Utterback, filed with the clerk of superior court a Request for Hearing, stating that a recommitment hearing needed to be scheduled. The request form required Dr. Utterback to specify the reason the hearing was necessary, including whether it was to \u201cdetermine the appropriateness\u201d of Hayes\u2019 \u201cContinued inpatient treatment,\u201d \u201cOutpatient treatment,\u201d \u201cDischarge,\u201d or \u201cConditional release.\u201d Dr. Utterback indicated on the form that the rehearing was to determine the appropriateness of Hayes\u2019 discharge.\nIn the Examination and Recommendation form attached to the hearing request, Dr. Utterback reported that Hayes \u201chas progressed through the forensic program and currently has extensive off grounds privileges, which include full time work, AA/NA and family visits.\u201d Dr. Utterback also noted that Hayes has \u201cbeen living in the independent living program without any problems or difficulties\u201d; that \u201c[h]e has had no symptoms of mental illness for many years and is on no psychotropic medications\u201d; and that \u201c[h]e presents as well groomed, alert, oriented, cooperative, pleasant [with] no signs of aggressive violence.\u201d\nThe recommitment hearing requested by Dr. Utterback was held on 17 September 2007, and numerous mental health professionals testified. At the 2001 hearing, six years earlier, the court-appointed independent expert, Dr. Jonathan J. Weiner, expressed his view that Hayes was still mentally ill and dangerous. In the 2007 hearing, however, Dr. Weiner explained that because of Hayes\u2019 progress since 2001, he has now concluded that Hayes is not mentally ill under North Carolina law and that \u201cthere is not a reasonable probability that the conduct which resulted in his being committed almost 20 years ago would be repeatedf.]\u201d Dr. Weiner emphasized Hayes\u2019 full-time employment for three years, his active participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, and his 13 years of sobriety. He believes that the risk of Hayes\u2019 relapsing into alcohol dependence is \u201cvery, very small\u201d and has concluded that Hayes not only no longer needs inpatient commitment, but that it is no longer therapeutically sound to keep Hayes in Dorothea Dix Hospital as an inpatient.\nDr. Peter Barboriak, the medical director of forensic psychology services at Dorothea Dix Hospital, and Dr. Mark Hazelrigg, chief forensic psychologist at the Hospital, each expressed his medical opinion that Hayes did not meet the legal definitions of being mentally ill or dangerous to others. Dr. Barboriak, who treated Hayes from March 2007 to June 2007, testified that, in his opinion, Hayes does not need to be hospitalized and should be discharged. He does not believe that Hayes shows any sign of active mental illness. Dr. Hazelrigg noted that, as a result of a 2006 consent order setting out Hayes\u2019 off-campus privileges, Hayes currently spends more time away from Dorothea Dix Hospital than in the Hospital. Although Dr. Hazelrigg acknowledged that if Hayes resumed using drugs and alcohol, he could have another psychotic episode, he emphasized that Hayes does not have a risk of violence except in the context of substance abuse-induced psychosis, and substance abuse is unlikely to recur given Hayes\u2019 demonstrated commitment to staying drug- and alcohol-free.\nDr. Charles Vance, who treated Hayes from 2001 to 2007, and Dr. Utterback, Hayes\u2019 current treating physician, both of Dorothea Dix Hospital, agreed that Hayes is neither mentally ill nor dangerous to others under North Carolina law. Dr. Vance reported that no clinician at Dorothea Dix Hospital considers Hayes to be mentally ill any longer. Although he recognized that Hayes\u2019 risk for violent conduct is greater than that of an average person, he stressed that it is \u201ca very, very small risk such that I feel comfortable saying he does not pose a substantial risk to the health and safety of others.\u201d Edwin D. Munt, who had provided therapy to Hayes at Dorothea Dix Hospital from December 1992 to August 2004, explained that he had ended therapy treatment with Hayes in 2004 because, in his opinion, Hayes was no longer mentally ill. Munt also testified that he does not believe that there is a reasonable probability that Hayes would repeat his violent behavior in the future.\nIn addition, Hayes presented the testimony of two forensic psychiatrists and a forensic psychologist from outside of Dorothea Dix Hospital who had evaluated Hayes over a substantial period of time. Dr. Seymour Halleck has been involved in Hayes\u2019 treatment since 1991. He testified that, in his medical opinion, Hayes is not mentally ill and that there is not a reasonable probability that he is dangerous to others. He acknowledged that there is a risk that Hayes could become psychotic and violent if he abuses substances in the future, but that the risk is small in light of nearly 19 years free of psychosis. Dr. James Bellard explained that he has worked with Hayes on a pro bono basis since 1996. Dr. Bellard testified that based on his decade-long involvement in Hayes\u2019 case, he does not believe that Hayes is currently mentally ill. Although he admits there is some risk that Hayes could return to substance abuse and some risk for violence if he becomes psychotic again, he believes the risk that Hayes would be dangerous to others is \u201cextremely low.\u201d Hayes\u2019 final witness, clinical psychologist Dr. Christopher Norris, agreed with each of the other medical experts that Hayes \u201cdoes not suffer from any mental illness as determined by North Carolina law\u201d and is not dangerous to others. He testified that there is a risk that a return to substance abuse could lead to a psychotic break in the future, but that the risk of Hayes\u2019 relapse into substance abuse is low.\nThe State presented the testimony of one expert witness, Dr. Robert S. Brown, Jr., a forensic psychiatrist from Virginia. Dr. Brown testified that, in his medical opinion, Hayes is mentally ill with diagnoses of personality disorder not otherwise specified with narcissistic features, substance dependence, and sleep apnea. When asked if he had an opinion whether \u201cMr. Hayes has any risk for future violence should he be released from the hospital[,]\u201d Dr. Brown stated that the risk was \u201csmall or slight.\u201d Dr. Brown, however, believes that even a slight risk is unacceptable. Although Dr. Brown does not think Hayes should be unconditionally released from Dix Hospital, he added: \u201cI\u2019m just suggesting that a successful 19-year stay at Dorothea Dix, if it\u2019s any way possible, can be concluded with a rational and safe and appropriate discharge plan, that\u2019s what I\u2019m in favor of.\u201d He explained further: \u201c[H]e\u2019s made progress at Dorothea Dix and I think he needs a discharge plan that contains some reasonable supervision in it to help guarantee success in \u2014 in the discharge.\u201d\nIn an order entered 1 October 2007, the trial court found, with respect to the issue of mental illness, that Hayes met the criteria for being diagnosed with the mental disorders of \u201c[p]olysubstance [djependance\u201d and \u201c[personality [disorder NOS [Not Otherwise Specified], with antisocial and narcissistic traits.\u201d The trial court further determined that \u201cthese mental disorders so lessen the capacity of Michael Charles Hayes to use self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations as to make it necessary or advisable for him to be under treatment, care, supervision, guidance or control and thus, they constitute mental illnesses as defined by G.S. 12203(21).\u201d\nOn the issue of dangerousness, the trial court found:\nThe four homicides and seven felonious assaults committed by the respondent on July 27,1988, are episodes of dangerousness to others in the relevant past which in combination with his past and present mental condition, his multiple mental illnesses and his conduct since admission to Dorothea Dix Hospital since 1989 and up to and including his conduct in the hospital during the previous years indicated there is a reasonable probability that the respondent\u2019s seriously violent conduct will be repeated and that he will be dangerous to others in the future if unconditionally released with no supervision at this time. There is a reasonable probability that if the respondent were released today he may relapse into his previous pattern of multi-substance abuse/dependence and relapse into a situation repeating his exposure to the same ordinary life stressors at least as serious as, if not more so, than those which were present in 1988 at the time of the killings. Should these kinds of relapses occur, the respondent will run the risk of future violent behavior.\n(Emphasis added.)\nBased on these findings, the trial court ultimately concluded that Hayes had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is no longer mentally ill or dangerous to others and, therefore, had \u201cfailed to bear his burden of proof that he meets either criteria for release under N.C.G.S. 122C-276.1.\u201d The trial court recommitted Hayes to inpatient treatment for a period of 365 days. Hayes timely appealed to this Court.\nDiscussion\nPursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1321(b), when a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, \u201cthe presiding judge shall enter an order finding that the defendant has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime and committing the defendant to a Forensic Unit operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, where the defendant shall reside until the defendant\u2019s release in accordance with Chapter 122C of the General Statutes.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-268.1(a) (2007) provides for a commitment hearing within 50 days of the initial commitment. At that hearing, under \u00a7 122C-268.1(i), the respondent may be recommitted for a subsequent period of 90 days. At the end of the 90-day period, the respondent may be recommitted for an additional 180-day period under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.1(e). After that, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.1(d) provides for annual commitment hearings.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-268.1(i) sets out the standard governing the trial court\u2019s review for the first hearing:\nThe respondent shall bear the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he (i) no longer has a mental illness as defined in G.S. 122C-3(21), or (ii) is no longer dangerous to others as defined in G.S. 122C-3(ll)b. If the court is so satisfied, then the court shall order the respondent discharged and released. If the court finds that the respondent has not met his burden of proof, then the court shall order that inpatient commitment continue at a 24-hour facility designated pursuant to G.S. 122C-252 for a period not to exceed 90 days. The court shall make a written record of the facts that support its findings.\nThe standard is the same for the second hearing, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.1(c), and for any subsequent hearing, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.1(d).\nHayes first argues on appeal that Chapter 122C provides for three possible dispositions at recommitment hearings. According to Hayes, the trial court is authorized: \u201c(1) to order the recommitment of a respondent to inpatient hospitalization, (2) to order the unconditional release of a respondent, or (3) to order the conditional release of a respondent.\u201d The State contends, as a threshold matter, that Hayes failed to present his argument regarding conditional release in the trial court and, therefore, waived appellate review of the issue.\nRule 10 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure \u201cprovides that \u2018[i]n order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make.\u2019 \u201d Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 195, 657 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2008) (quoting N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1)). Review of the record reveals that Hayes failed to present any argument to the trial court that conditional release is a dispositional alternative under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.1.\nAlthough Hayes\u2019 counsel asked several of the mental health professionals testifying at the hearing about the potential benefits of a \u201ctransitional program\u201d or \u201cconditional release\u201d for Hayes, counsel also argued to the trial court that \u201cit\u2019s an either or decision\u201d regarding unconditional release or recommitment. Without presenting a distinct argument to the trial court that a conditional release was a possible disposition, Hayes failed to properly preserve the issue for appellate review.\nIn cases where a party has failed to preserve an argument for appellate review, \u201cRule 2 permits the appellate courts to excuse a party\u2019s default. . . when necessary to \u2018prevent manifest injustice to a party\u2019 or to \u2018expedite decision in the public interest.\u2019 \u201d Dogwood, 362 N.C. at 196, 657 S.E.2d at 364 (quoting N.C.R. App. R 2). In this case, all the parties and the trial court assumed at the hearing that the case presented an \u201ceither/or\u201d proposition \u2014 Hayes would be either recommitted or unconditionally released. See Potter v. Homestead Pres. Ass\u2019n, 330 N.C. 569, 576, 412 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1992) (electing to suspend appellate rules under Rule 2 to consider plaintiff\u2019s dismissed claim where record reflected parties and trial court operated under \u201cerroneous[] assumption]\u201d regarding statute of limitations).\nThe prejudice of the parties\u2019 assumption to the proceedings in this case is readily apparent from a review of the testimony (including the expert testimony presented by the State that must have formed the basis for the trial court\u2019s order), the State\u2019s closing argument, and the trial court\u2019s order itself. Significantly, the State\u2019s only expert witness candidly explained that a conditional release \u2014 a release with a discharge plan \u2014 is \u201cwhat I\u2019m in favor of.\u201d The State, however, argued in closing:\nAnd as the Court is aware, if you release him, you have to release him unconditionally. He can go wherever he wants, he can do whatever he wants, he can associate with whomever he\u2019d like to, he can go to AA meetings or not go to AA meetings. There\u2019s no way for the Court or society to have any checks or balances on him with regard to what he does.\nIf you release him, I submit based on the situation that he has created for himself, he\u2019s essentially walking into a \u2014 and that stressful environment has simply created too much of a risk that he might start down that slippery slope. And once he starts down, increasing his \u2014 at abusing substances again, it\u2019s a risk that I submit to you that this community should not have to bear based in part or in large part on the extremely violent and homicidal conduct that he has already exhibited he is capable of by abusing substances.\n(Emphasis added.) The prejudicial effect of the assumption then manifests itself in the trial court\u2019s finding that \u201cthere is a reasonable probability that the respondent\u2019s seriously violent conduct will be repeated and that he will be dangerous to others in the future if unconditionally released with no supervision at this time.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThus, the assumption that the only alternative to recommitment was an unconditional release was a fundamental aspect of the State\u2019s argument for continued inpatient commitment and a critical component of the trial court\u2019s order. Indeed, if a conditional release were a lawful disposition, the impact of the State\u2019s sole expert\u2019s testimony could be very different since his testimony can be read as endorsing a conditional release over recommitment. In our discretion, we believe it is necessary to address this issue to prevent manifest injustice.to Hayes.\nMoreover, an appellate court may elect, in its discretion under Rule 2, to address important issues that frequently arise in order to expedite decision in the public interest. Blumenthal v. Lynch, 315 N.C. 571, 578, 340 S.E.2d 358, 362 (1986) (\u201c[O]n rare occasions, when ... issues of importance which are frequently presented to state agencies and the courts require a decision in the public interest, this Court will exercise its inherent residual power or its authority under Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and address those issues though they are not properly raised on appeal.\u201d).\nThe issue presented by this appeal will arise in every recommitment hearing of a person who has been committed by virtue of having been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The question of the dispositions available to a trial court is critical to the protection of the public\u2019s safety and the protection of the respondent\u2019s rights. As then Justice Sharp reminded us in In re Tew, 280 N.C. 612, 618, 187 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1972) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted):\nA verdict of not guilty due to insanity constitutes a full acquittal, and one thus acquitted is entitled to all the protection and constitutional rights as if acquitted upon any other ground. . . . The commitment of such a person following an acquittal is imposed for the protection of society and the individual confined \u2014 not as punishment for crime. He can be confined in an asylum only until his mental health is restored when he will be entitled to his release, like any other insane person.\nThe need for resolution of this significant issue is well demonstrated by Hayes\u2019 case: this issue will recur every year at his recommitment hearing. It is in the public\u2019s interest that this issue be resolved now.\nOn the merits of the issue, Hayes contends that even though neither N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-268.1(i) nor N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.1(c) explicitly authorize a conditional release, other provisions in Chapter 122C contemplate a conditional release as a dispositional option. Hayes argues that construing these statutes in pari materia leads to the conclusion that a trial court is authorized to order a conditional release in \u00a7 122C-268.1 and \u00a7 122C-276.1 hearings. The State, on the other hand, maintains that the language in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 122C-268.1(i) and -276.1(c) provides for only two dispositional alternatives \u2014 commitment or unconditional release \u2014 and, therefore, the trial court\u2019s authority is necessarily limited to those two options.\nSignificantly, both N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-268.1(i) and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-276.I(c) refer to a respondent being \u201cdischarged and released.\u201d (Emphasis added.) A fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is that \u201ca statute must be construed, if possible, so as to give effect to every part of it, it being presumed that the Legislature did not intend any of its provisions to be surplusage.\u201d State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422, 431, 212 S.E.2d 113, 119 (1975). If, as the State argues, the General Assembly had intended that the trial court have only the options of discharge or recommitment, the word \u201creleased\u201d would be synonymous with the word \u201cdischarged\u201d and would be a mere redundancy.\nUnder traditional statutory construction principles, some meaning \u2014 independent of that ascribed to \u201cdischarge\u201d \u2014 must be given to the word \u201crelease.\u201d See Jackson v. Guilford County Bd. of Adjustment, 275 N.C. 155, 167, 166 S.E.2d 78, 86 (1969) (holding that where statute or ordinance contains multiple terms or requirements, it is presumed that \u201cnone of them is a mere repetition of the others\u201d); State v. Ward, 31 N.C. App. 104, 106, 228 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1976) (\u201cIt is presumed that no meaningless or useless words or provisions are used in a statute, but that each word or provision is to be given some effect.\u201d). tent.\u201d Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 137 (1990). To effectuate that intent, \u201c[statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia and harmonized, if possible, to give effect to each.\u201d Bd. of Adjustment of the Town of Swansboro v. Town of Swansboro, 334 N.C. 421, 427, 432 S.E.2d 310, 313 (1993). Accord Redevelopment Gomm\u2019n of Greensboro v. Sec. Nat\u2019l Bank of Greensboro, 252 N.C. 595, 610, 114 S.E.2d 688, 698 (1960) (\u201cIt is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that sections and acts in pari materia, and all parts thereof, should be construed together and compared with each other.\u201d). Words and phrases of a statute are to be construed as a part of the composite whole and accorded only that meaning which other modifying provisions and the clear intent and purpose of the statute permits. Underwood v. Howland, 274 N.C. 473, 479, 164 S.E.2d 2, 7 (1968).\n\u201cThe primary rule of construction ... is to ascertain the intent of the legislature and to carry out such intention to the fullest ex-\nChapter 122C of the General Statutes codifies the Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Substance Abuse Act of 1985. Within Chapter 122C is Article 5, which outlines the \u201cProcedures for Admission arid Discharge of Clients.\u201d Article 5 includes Part 7, entitled \u201cInvoluntary Commitment of the Mentally Ill; Facilities for the Mentally Ill.\u201d Part 7 includes not only N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-268.1 and \u00a7 122C-276.1, but also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-277 (2007), entitled \u201cRelease and conditional release; judicial review.\u201d\nPertinent to this case, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-277 provides:\n(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (bl) of this section, the attending physician shall discharge a committed respondent unconditionally at any time he determines that the respondent is no longer in need of inpatient commitment. However, if the attending physician determines that the respondent meets the criteria for outpatient commitment as defined in G.S. 122C-263(d)(l), he may request the clerk to calendar a supplemental hearing to determine whether an outpatient commitment order shall be issued. Except as provided in subsections (b) and (bl) of this section, the attending physician may also release a respondent conditionally for periods not in excess of 30 days on specified medically appropriate conditions. . . .\n(bl) If the respondent was initially committed pursuant to G.S. 15A-1321, 15 days before the respondent\u2019s discharge or con ditional release the attending physician shall notify the clerk of superior court. The clerk shall calendar a hearing and shall give notice as provided by G.S. 122C-264(dl). . . . The hearing shall be conducted under the standards and procedures set forth in G.S. 122C-268.1. Provided, that in no event shall discharge or conditional release under this section be allowed for a respondent during the period from automatic commitment to hearing under G.S. 122C-268.1.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-277(a) and (bl) (emphasis added).\nThe plain language in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-277 indicates that the General Assembly intended conditional release as a dispositional option in the insanity acquittee involuntary commitment context. Even the State acknowledges that the trial court has authority to order a conditional release under \u00a7 122C-277. As the broad language indicates, the only time conditional release is not an option injudicial review proceedings is during the 50-day period between the automatic commitment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1321 and the initial hearing under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-268.1.\nConstruiifg N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 122C-268.1, -276.1, and -277 in pari materia, it is reasonable to read these statutes as providing the same dispositional alternatives \u2014 recommitment, discharge, or conditional release \u2014 regardless whether the hearing was initiated by a respondent\u2019s treating physician or whether it was automatically calendared pursuant to a statutory mandate. The State has presented no logical rationale for its position that the trial court\u2019s authority to order a conditional release is limited to those instances when a physician intends to conditionally release an insanity acquittee. The more reasonable construction of the statute is that if a trial court may order a conditional release when requested by a treating physician, then the trial court itself has commensurate authority under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 122C-268.1 and -276.1 to order a conditional release in an automatically calendared proceeding.\nThe procedure in this case demonstrates the irrationality of construing the statutes to grant the trial court authority to order a conditional release if a treating physician requests a hearing under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-277 \u2014 as Dr. Utterback did here \u2014 but to deprive the trial court of the authority to do so if the hearing is deemed not to be initiated by the treating physician, as the State apparently assumes to be the case here. Consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-277, Hayes\u2019 treating physician submitted a Request for Hearing to obtain an order regarding the discharge of Hayes. Nonetheless, the parties all have treated this hearing as if it were an automatic one not initiated by the treating physician, with the result, according to the State, that the trial court could only recommit or unconditionally release Hayes. We do not believe the General Assembly intended such a curious result \u2014 that the trial court\u2019s dispositional authority could be defined by the label placed on the hearing by the parties.\nThe Legislature\u2019s intent to provide for conditional release as an option in \u00a7 122C-268.1 or \u00a7 122C-276.1 hearings is further evidenced by the notice provisions set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-264(dl) (2007):\nFor hearings and rehearings pursuant to G.S. 122C-268.1 and G.S. 122C-276.1, the clerk of superior court shall calendar the hearing or rehearing and shall notify the respondent, his counsel, counsel for the State, and the district attorney involved in the original trial. . . . Upon receipt of the notice, the district attorney shall notify any persons he deems appropriate, including anyone who has filed with his office a written request for notification of any hearing or rehearing concerning discharge or conditional release of a respondent.\n(Emphasis added.) Notably, no other hearing pursuant to any other statute is mentioned in \u00a7 122C-264(dl) \u2014 \u00a7 122C-268.1 and \u00a7 122C-276.1 hearings are the sole subjects of the statute.\nThe plain language of this statute requires that notice of \u00a7 122C-268.1 and -276.1 hearings be given to anyone who has requested notice of a hearing \u201cconcerning discharge or conditional release.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-264(dl). Thus, the statute recognizes that hearings under \u00a7 122C-268.1 and -276.1 are hearings that may involve a conditional release. If, as the State urges, a conditional release is not an option in these hearings, then the General Assembly did not need to reference a conditional release in \u00a7 122C-264(dl). The State\u2019s interpretation cannot be reconciled with longstanding principles of statutory construction. See State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 19-20, 187 S.E.2d 706, 718 (1972) (\u201cIn seeking to discover and give effect to the legislative intent, an act must be considered as a whole, and none of its provisions shall be deemed useless or redundant if they can reasonably be considered as adding something to the act which is in harmony with its purpose.\u201d).\nIn'sum, construing \u00a7 122C-264(dl) and \u00a7 122C-277(bl) as part of a comprehensive whole with \u00a7 122C-268.1 and \u00a7 122C-276.1, we do not believe that the General Assembly intended to grant a trial court authority to order a conditional release only if the commitment proceeding was initiated by a treating physician under \u00a7 122C-277(bl) and intended to deprive the trial court of authority to order a conditional release when the hearing automatically came up under \u00a7 122C-268.1 or \u00a7 122C-276.1. In addition, \u00a7 122C-264(dl) \u2014 the notice statute \u2014 specifically references \u00a7 122C-268.1 and \u00a7 122C-276.1 hearings and indicates that they are hearings \u201cconcerning discharge or conditional release of a respondent.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-264(dl). We conclude that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 122C-264, -268.1, -276.1, and -277 \u2014 read in pari materia \u2014 establish the trial court\u2019s authority to order a conditional release as a dispositional option in \u00a7 122C-268.1 and \u00a7 122C-276.1 hearings.\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Tew supports our conclusion. In Tew, 280 N.C. at 618-19, 187 S.E.2d at 18, the Supreme Court held that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122-86 (1964) (\u201cPersons acquitted of crime on account of mental illness; how discharged from hospital.\u201d) \u2014a precursor to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 122C-268.1 and -276.1 \u2014 did not comport with due process because it required an insanity acquittee\u2019s release to be certified by the superintendents of the state\u2019s mental facilities. The Court held that the certification requirement unconstitutionally \u201ccircumscribed\u201d the trial court\u2019s authority to discharge an insanity acquit-tee. Tew, 280 N.C. at 619, 187 S.E.2d at 18.\nIn remanding the case to the trial court for a trial de novo, the Court stressed: \u201c[W]e perceive no legal reason why [the petitioner] could not be granted a conditional probationary release if his mental condition be found to justify it. See G.S. \u00a7 122-67 (1964).\u201d Id. at 621, 187 S.E.2d at 19. Like the current statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122-67 (1964) did not specifically authorize the trial court to order a conditional release, although it did authorize the superintendent of the hospital at which an insanity acquittee was confined to \u201crelease [an insanity acquittee] on probation\u201d if \u201csuitable provision[s] c[ould] be made . . . .\u201d If, in Tew, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122-67 permitted the trial court to order conditional release, although not explicitly authorizing the court to do so, we see no reason that the same conclusion . should not arise with respect to the current provisions: N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 122C-268.1 and -276.1.\nThe State, asserts that the Supreme Court\u2019s discussion in Tew of this issue was dicta. To the contrary, this holding addressed a specific argument raised by the petitioner. The petitioner had argued to the Court that the trial court\u2019s \u201cfindings that he is now sane and safe require[d] his unconditional release.\u201d Tew, 280 N.C. at 617, 187 S.E.2d at 17. In responding to this argument, the Court concluded that Tew should not be unconditionally released, but rather that there should be a trial de novo, following which he could be (1) granted an unconditional release, (2) returned to the custody of Dorothea Dix Hospital, or (3) granted a conditional release. Id. at 621, 187 S.E.2d at 19. The Court\u2019s determination that the trial court had authority to grant a conditional release thus is not dicta.\nOur construction of the word \u201crelease\u201d to authorize both conditional and unconditional releases is also consistent with the statutory framework\u2019s purpose. See In re Appeal of Bass Income Fund, 115 N.C. App. 703, 705, 446 S.E.2d 594, 595 (1994) (\u201c \u2018The words and phrases of a statute must be interpreted contextually,\u2019 and read in a manner which effectuates the legislative purpose.\u201d (quoting In re Kirkman, 302 N.C. 164, 167, 273 S.E.2d 712, 715 (1981))). In Tew, 280 N.C. at 618, 187 S.E.2d at 17, the Supreme Court explained that the Legislature had a dual purpose in requiring automatic commitment for insanity acquittees: \u201cThe commitment of such a person following an acquittal is imposed for the protection of society and the individual confined \u2014 not as punishment for crime.\u201d\nLikewise, in In re Rogers, 78 N.C. App. 202, 204, 336 S.E.2d 682, 684 (1985), disc, review denied, 316 N.C. 194, 341 S.E.2d 578 (1986), this Court confirmed that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122-58.13 (Supp. 1983) (repealed 1985), a precursor to the judicial review statute N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 122C-277, \u201ccreates an additional procedural safeguard for the public while, simultaneously, providing the respondent the opportunity for release afforded others similarly committed.\u201d This Court stressed that the statute \u201cbalances society\u2019s right to be protected from violent crimes against respondent\u2019s right to be released when he no longer needs hospitalization.\u201d Rogers, 78 N.C. App. at 204, 336 S.E.2d at 684.\nIt is apparent that the same dual purposes undergird the current statutory framework. See also Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 368, 77 L. Ed. 2d 694, 708, 103 S. Ct. 3043, 3051-52 (1983) (\u201cThe purpose of commitment following an insanity acquittal, like that of civil commitment, is to treat the individual\u2019s mental illness and protect him and society from his potential dangerousness.\u201d). If, however, one of the primary purposes is to protect the public from insanity acquit-tees, then it is illogical to construe the word \u201crelease\u201d in a manner that provides less protection to the public than the public receives in connection with involuntary commitments under other statutes.\nWith respect to other people who have been involuntarily committed, they can be transitioned into society through a conditional release or outpatient commitment program. The State would have us hold, however, that the General Assembly intended to deprive trial courts of the authority to similarly transition insanity acquittees into society through a conditional release. The State\u2019s closing argument in this case set out precisely the increased risk resulting from an unconditional release when compared to a conditional release. Yet, the State asks us to hold that a trial court has a choice only of (1) unconditionally releasing an insanity acquittee \u2014 creating a risk to the public \u2014 or (2) recommitting the insanity acquittee even though he is ready to take steps to return to society. This approach cannot be reconciled with the dual purposes of the statutory framework.\nFinally, construing the statutes to preclude a conditional release would raise constitutional concerns. See State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503, 526, 243 S.E.2d 338, 353 (1978) (holding that statutes should be construed to avoid \u201cconflict with the superior voice of the Constitution\u201d). A prison inmate \u2014 necessarily convicted of a crime \u2014 who is committed to Dorothea Dix Hospital during imprisonment would, if the inmate\u2019s sentence expired while committed, be entitled to a conditional release. The State\u2019s construction of the statute would deprive an insanity acquittee of the same opportunity. In Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 86, 118 L. Ed. 2d 437, 452, 112 S. Ct. 1780, 1789 (1992), the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that treated criminals and insanity acquittees differently without a \u201cconvincing reason.\u201d\nMoreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that \u201c[t]he Due Process Clause \u2018requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed.\u2019 \u201d Jones, 463 U.S. at 368, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 708, 103 S. Ct. at 3052 (quoting Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 738, 32 L. Ed. 2d 435, 451, 92 S. Ct. 1845, 1858 (1972)). Interpreting our statutes to preclude a trial court\u2019s conditional release of an acquittee would raise a serious question whether such a statute bears a reasonable relation to the State\u2019s interest in protecting the public.\nConclusion\nWe, therefore, hold that a trial court has authority following a hearing under N.C. Gen: Stat. \u00a7 122C-268.1 and \u00a7 122C-276.1 to order a conditional release of an insanity acquittee. Here, it is apparent from the trial court\u2019s findings of fact that its assumption that it had no authority to order a conditional release played a fundamental role in its decision in this case. The trial court found that \u201cthere is a reasonable probability that the respondent\u2019s seriously violent conduct will be repeated and that he will be dangerous to others in the future if unconditionally released with no supervision at this time.\u201d The trial court did not make findings of fact that such a reasonable probability exists in the absence of an unconditional release. We cannot determine that the trial court, if aware that a conditional release was a legal disposition, would have still recommitted Hayes. See Tew, 280 N.C. at 621, 187 S.E.2d at 19 (vacating commitment order and remanding for hearing de novo when \u201cat the time [the trial judge] made his findings he was under a misapprehension as to the applicable law\u201d regarding commitment of insanity acquittee).\nWe, therefore, must reverse the trial court\u2019s 1 October 2007 commitment order and remand for a hearing de novo to decide whether Hayes has met his burden of proof and, if he has, whether he should be conditionally or unconditionally released. We leave to the discretion of the trial court whether to base the new decision on the existing record or whether to hear additional evidence given the parties\u2019 focus, in the first hearing, on recommitment versus unconditional release. Due to our disposition of this appeal, we do not address Hayes\u2019 other arguments on appeal.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges ROBERT C. HUNTER and STEELMAN concur.\n. The fact that Hayes\u2019 treating physician checked the box next to \u201c[discharge\u201d should not necessarily mean that a conditional release is not available under \u00a7 122C-277. As Hayes\u2019 doctor\u2019s testimony reveals, she selected this option because, in her medical opinion, Hayes is neither mentally ill nor dangerous to himself or others as defined by North Carolina law, and, therefore, should be unconditionally discharged. The trial court, in this case, was, however, unpersuaded by Hayes\u2019 treating physician\u2019s testimony. We are unwilling to hold that a trial court\u2019s statutory authority to order the disposition it believes supported by the evidence can be limited by a doctor\u2019s completion of a form.", "type": "majority", "author": "GEER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Diane Martin Romper, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, for respondent-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL CHARLES HAYES, Respondent\nNo. COA08-894\n(Filed 18 August 2009)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 public interest \u2014 dispositions available at recommitment hearing\u2014 Rule 2\nThe issue of whether a conditional release was a possible disposition at a recommitment hearing for an inmate involuntarily committed following an insanity verdict was addressed by the Court of Appeals under Appellate Rule 2 despite not being properly preserved for review. The question will arise in every recommitment hearing of a person found not guilty by reason of insanity, and the question of dispositions available to the trial court is critical to the protection of the public\u2019s safety and the respondent\u2019s rights.\n2. Mental Illness\u2014 recommitment hearing \u2014 conditional release \u2014 available disposition\nA trial court has authority following a hearing under N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 122C-268.1 and -276.1 to order a conditional release of an insanity acquittee. In this case, it was apparent that the trial court\u2019s assumption that it had no authority to award a conditional release played a fundamental role in its decision, and the commitment order was reversed and remanded for a hearing de novo.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 1 October 2007 by Judge Steve A. Balog in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 January 2009.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Diane Martin Romper, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, for respondent-appellant." }, "file_name": "0069-01", "first_page_order": 95, "last_page_order": 111 }