Background
Christopher Mikhak was indicted in 2018 on multiple felony charges including aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and aggravated robbery, all with firearm specifications. After a jury trial, Mikhak was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) on most charges. He was committed as a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization at Summit Behavioral Healthcare Campus.
In 2022, Mikhak was granted conditional release with requirements including medication compliance, therapy, and no contact with victims. Over several years, Mikhak repeatedly tested boundaries, terminated his treating psychiatrist, and exhibited concerning behaviors. After he allegedly made a threatening remark to a staff member, the State moved to revoke his conditional release. The trial court terminated conditional release and remanded Mikhak to inpatient treatment.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court found no abuse of discretion in the revocation. Mikhak’s treatment providers testified that he had an ongoing failure to take responsibility for his risk management needs, displayed a “sense of entitlement,” and denied responsibility for the underlying felony offenses.
The court held that under R.C. 2945.402, the trial court need only find by a preponderance of the evidence that the person violated the conditions of conditional release. The court rejected Mikhak’s argument that the trial court failed to consider less drastic measures, noting that R.C. 2945.402 requires only that the court “may continue, modify, or terminate” conditional release.
Key Takeaways
- Under R.C. 2945.402, a court revoking NGRI conditional release need only find a violation by a preponderance of the evidence; no additional findings about less restrictive alternatives are required.
- A pattern of boundary-testing, treatment noncompliance, and refusal to accept responsibility for underlying offenses can support revocation even without a single dramatic incident.
- Forensic psychologist testimony about ongoing risk-management failures provides a strong evidentiary basis for revocation of conditional release.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the standard for revoking NGRI conditional release in Ohio. The relatively low preponderance-of-evidence standard and the absence of a requirement to consider less restrictive alternatives give trial courts broad discretion. Defense attorneys representing NGRI acquittees on conditional release should counsel their clients that a pattern of noncompliance can result in revocation. Prosecutors seeking revocation should build their case through consistent documentation by treatment providers.