## Facts

- Alexander Lafferty was charged with two counts of first-degree larceny for embezzling funds from his employer.
- At trial, Lafferty raised an insanity defense based on compulsive gambling, and the court found him not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-47(a), Lafferty was committed and a hearing was held to determine whether his release would present “a danger to himself or others.”
- At the hearing, the trial court heard expert testimony, including from a psychiatrist and a psychologist.
- In an oral ruling, the court stated it understood the psychiatrist to have testified there was no danger of physical harm but there was “possibly” danger as to property.
- The court nevertheless ordered Lafferty released, finding he was not “a danger to himself or others” under § 53a-47(a).
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the statute includes danger to property and (2) the trial court actually found Lafferty posed such danger.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court actually made a factual finding that Lafferty was a danger to property, as opposed to merely restating an expert’s testimony.
2. Whether an appellate court may decide whether “a danger to himself or others” in § 53a-47(a) includes danger to property without a clear factual finding on the defendant’s danger to property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded the trial court’s oral remarks were ambiguous as to whether the court found, as a fact, that Lafferty was a danger to property.
- The Court held that whether Lafferty was a danger to property was a factual question that had to be determined before the appellate court could review the State’s statutory arguments.
- The Court remanded the case to the trial court for further articulation of its decision, including a clarified finding on whether Lafferty was a danger to property.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of statutory and legal claims may require a clear factual predicate; an appellate court should not resolve legal questions on an ambiguous factual record.
- Fact-finding is the trial court’s function; when the basis of a trial court’s ruling is unclear, the proper remedy may be a remand for articulation rather than a merits decision.
- In post-acquittal release determinations under § 53a-47(a), a reviewing court must know what specific dangers (if any) the trial court found before assessing the legal meaning of “a danger to himself or others.”

## Conclusion

Because the record did not clearly show whether the trial court found Lafferty to be a danger to property, the Supreme Court remanded for an articulated memorandum clarifying the factual findings necessary for meaningful appellate review of the statutory question.


State v. Lafferty, 189 Conn. 360, 456 A.2d 272 (Conn. 1983)