Background
Jeremy Stutler was charged in 2011 with murder, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse. After being found not guilty by reason of insanity, he was committed to a maximum-security psychiatric hospital and later transferred to Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare. He eventually received Level III movement privileges and limited Level IV privileges for medical treatment.
In 2025, facility clinicians recommended Level V privileges, which would allow Stutler to leave hospital grounds for approved community outings. The proposed three-phase plan included GPS monitoring, drug screening, post-outing debriefing, and other safeguards, but ultimately would permit outings without direct supervision by facility staff or community-provider personnel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the request.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It first held that Level V privileges constitute “nonsecure status” under R.C. 2945.401 because Stutler would be allowed to move through the community without direct staff supervision. GPS location tracking and telephone access to staff did not amount to actual supervision or physical control.
Because the request involved nonsecure status, the court applied State v. Hickman and reviewed the trial court’s ruling for abuse of discretion. The trial court was permitted to approve, reject, or modify the recommendation after considering the statutory factors in R.C. 2945.401(E), rather than being required to approve the change unless the State proved a safety threat by clear and convincing evidence.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court reasonably weighed Stutler’s treatment progress against his conflicting accounts of his upbringing, history of violence and supervision violations, the gruesome nature of the underlying homicide, concerns about his insight, and an assessment placing his risk of future violence at “moderate.” The denial was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
Key Takeaways
- Community privileges allowing an insanity acquittee to leave a secure hospital without direct staff supervision constitute nonsecure status under R.C. 2945.401.
- GPS monitoring and telephone contact do not convert otherwise unsupervised community access into supervised movement.
- For nonsecure-status requests, the trial court retains discretion under R.C. 2945.401 and may weigh treatment progress against the offense, violence history, insight, expert assessments, and public-safety concerns.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes supervised increases in movement privileges from changes that effectively place an insanity acquittee in nonsecure status. That classification determines the governing standard: nonsecure community access receives discretionary review under the statutory factors, not the clear-and-convincing-evidence framework applicable when the proposed movement remains supervised.
The ruling also confirms that strong institutional progress does not compel expanded community access when the record supports continuing concerns about insight, historical conduct, and the risk of violence outside a controlled setting.