ÿWPC¼9 …# VU>a %Ÿ 0 ¥UB® 4ð  n­ U.À 0Jî w@8 x 0T€ 0MÔ 0D! 0^e 0hà 0r+ 0| 0† 0Ÿ 1u/ 0d¤ B D3%U6X 0@ŽU.ÎB)üDC% AMh‡µñ<f-F“ ÙNæ+’4.v~Æ0vÓD2 AO8Æf8 0D,9 D/p9 BŸ9˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(á96$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€ƒXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi©U!3|xŠ«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô vwDxEy[z{{|}E~Ó€2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(ý(3t$¤¤Ý ƒ96!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÑ7€N{XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó çÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€ ÔÔ€ ôÔIn€this€case,€the€defendant€sought€and€the€trial€court€granted€a€Rule€9€interlocutory€€€€€€€€€€€Ïappeal€on€the€same€issue€before€the€verdict€was€returned.€€However,€this€court€rejected€the€appeal€at€€€€€€€€€Ïthat€time€because€the€issue€was€wholly€contingent€upon€an€acquittal,€and€in€any€event,€the€state€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïacknowledged€that€upon€an€acquittal,€a€stay€could€be€obtained€for€purposes€of€an€appeal€after€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€theÏverdict.Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€ ÔÔ€ ôÔFor€offenses€occurring€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„501(a)€provides€that€€€€€€Ïinsanity€is€an€affirmative€defense€which€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€proving€by€ð ðclear€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïand€convincing€evidence.ðð€€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€494.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€,ôÔÔ€ Ôà àThe€present€statute€is,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌÓ  Óà8 àò ò37„7„303.€€Judicial€hospitalization€or€outpatient€treatmentÏof€person€judged€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€„„€TransferÏto€forensic€services€unit.€„„€ó ó(a)€When€a€person€charged€with€aÏcriminal€offense€is€acquitted€of€the€charge€on€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€byÏreason€of€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense,€theÏcriminal€court€shall€order€the€person€detained€for€diagnosis€andÏevaluation€for€a€minimum€of€sixty€(60)€days€and€a€maximum€of€ninety€(90)Ïdays€in€a€hospital€or€treatment€resource.ÌÌà8 àà à(b)(1)€Following€the€diagnosis€and€evaluation,€if€certification€isÏprovided€that€the€person€is€committable€under€ðð€33„6„104,€the€districtÏattorney€general€shall€file€a€complaint€in€the€criminal€court€for€judicialÏcommitment€under€ðð€33„6„104€and€for€an€order€requiring€the€person€toÏparticipate€in€outpatient€treatment€at€a€treatment€resource€under€thisÏsubsection.€€If€certification€is€not€provided€that€the€person€is€committableÏunder€ðð€33„6„104,€the€district€attorney€general€shall€file€a€complaint€in€theÏcriminal€court€for€an€order€requiring€the€person€to€participate€in€outpatientÏtreatment€at€a€mental€health€facility€under€this€subsection.ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€Notwithstanding€any€provision€to€the€contrary€in€this€title,€theÏhospital€or€treatment€resource€shall€not€release€the€person€withoutÏspecific€authorization€of€the€court€while€such€complaint€is€pending€untilÏthe€end€of€the€ninety€(90)€day€maximum€detention€ordered€underÏsubsection€(a).€€The€hospital€or€treatment€resource€shall€release€theÏperson€at€the€expiration€of€the€ninety€(90)€day€detention€order€unless€theÏperson€has€been€ordered€committed€under€ðð€33„6„104.ÌÌà8 àà à(3)€If€the€court€does€not€commit€the€person€under€ðð€33„6„104€andÏthe€court€determines€that€the€personððs€condition€resulting€from€mentalÏillness€is€likely€to€deteriorate€rapidly€to€the€point€that€the€patient€will€pose€aÏsubstantial€likelihood€of€serious€harm€as€defined€in€ðð€33„6„104(a)€unless€Ïtreatment€is€continued,€the€court€may€order€the€person€to€participate€inÏoutpatient€treatment€at€a€treatment€resource€or€with€a€private€practitioner.€ÏOtherwise,€the€court€may€not€order€the€person€to€participate€in€outpatientÏtreatment.€€The€obligation€to€participate€in€outpatient€treatment€continuesÏuntil€it€is€terminated€by€the€court€under€subdivision€(5).ÌÌà8 àà à(4)€If€the€court€orders€the€patient€to€participate€in€outpatientÏtreatment€and€the€person€does€not€comply€with€the€treatment€plan,€theÏtreating€professional€shall€notify€the€district€attorney€general€of€theÏnoncompliance,€and€the€district€attorney€general€may€move€the€criminalÏcourt€to€cite€the€person€for€civil€or€criminal€contempt€of€court€for€the€non„compliance€and€may€file€a€complaint€in€the€criminal€court€under€theÏprovisions€of€ðð€33„6„104.€€The€treating€professional€shall€file€a€report€withÏthe€district€attorney€general€every€six€(6)€months€as€to€the€personððsÏcontinuing€need€for€treatment.ÌÌà8 àà à(5)€The€court€shall€terminate€the€obligation€to€participate€inÏoutpatient€treatment€when€it€determines€that€the€person€is€no€longerÏsubject€to€such€an€obligation€under€subdivision€(3).ÌÌà8 àà à(6)€The€court€is€hereby€vested€with€jurisdiction€to€conductÏproceedings€authorized€by€this€subsection.ÌÌà8 àà à(c)(1)€Following€the€hearing€conducted€by€the€criminal€courtÏunder€ðð€33„6„104,€if€the€court€finds€that€the€person€meets€theÏcommitment€standards€under€ðð€€33„6„104,€the€court€shall€enter€an€orderÏof€judicial€hospitalization€and€transfer€the€individual€to€the€custody€of€theÏcommissioner€subject€to€departmental€regulations€governing€releaseÏprocedures.ÌÌà8 àà à(2)€If€the€court€further€finds:ÌÌÓ#` °h*À–X#Óà8 àà àà à(A)€That€the€person€is€substantially€likely€to€à àinjureÏsuch€person€or€others€if€he€is€not€treated€in€a€forensic€services€unit;€andÌÌà8 àà àà à(B)€That€treatment€in€such€a€unit€is€in€his€best€interests,€theÏperson€shall€be€transfered€into€the€custody€of€the€commissioner€at€aÏforensic€services€unit€designated€by€the€commissioner€subject€to€theÏprovisions€of€ðð€33„7„203.Ì DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔ€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€allowed€the€defendant€to€present€proof€regarding€theÏdefendantððs€mental€condition€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€However,€such€evidence€was€wholly€irrelevant€toÏthe€issue€of€the€defendantððs€guilt€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€Ì ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔ€We€agree€with€the€Colorado€Supreme€Courtððs€reasoning€in€òòChavezóó€that€it€would€beÏinconsistent€to€hold€that€an€insanity€acquittee€may€be€automatically€committed€to€a€mental€hospital€for€dueÏprocess€purposes,€but€hold€that€the€acquittee€enjoys€a€fundamental€right€to€be€free€from€commitment€forÏthe€purposes€of€equal€protection.€629€P.2d€at€1051.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ#€..Xd#ÑÑ#€..Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ ÔßL€120;+'h|` ´- `€€Lßà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àDECEMBER€1993€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9212„CR„00431Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Knox€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Mary€BethÏLeibowitz,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌDWAYNE€WILLARD€PHILLIPS,à à)à à(Hospitalization€ofÏInsanity€Acquittee)Ìà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòà àFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌWilliam€C.€Talman€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌP.O.€Box€506€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€ofÏTennesseeÌKnoxville,€TN€37901à àà àà àà àandÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àMerrilyn€Feirman€Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneral€of€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÏ37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àRandall€Nichols€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àFred€Bright€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37901„1468ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›ÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Dwayne€Willard€Phillips,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏorder€of€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€requiring€his€hospitalization€for€a€minimum€ofÏsixty€days€in€a€mental€health€facility€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a)€for€the€purpose€ofÏdiagnosis€and€evaluation€after€he€was€found€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€TheÏdefendant€contends€that€his€mandatory€hospitalization€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a)€violates€equal€protection€and€due€process.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€charged€with€aggravated€robbery,€three€counts€ofÏaggravated€kidnapping,€and€two€counts€of€especially€aggravated€kidnapping.€€HeÏentered€a€plea€of€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€€At€his€bench€trial,€the€defendantÏstipulated€the€facts€giving€rise€to€the€charges.€€On€December€5,€1990,€the€defendantÏentered€a€branch€of€the€First€Tennessee€Bank€and€forced€several€tellers€at€gunpoint€toÏgive€him€money.€€He€then€forced€the€branch€manager€to€accompany€him€to€a€car€and€€Ïdemanded€that€she€get€in.€€However,€when€a€dye€pack€among€the€stolen€moneyÏexploded,€the€manager€was€able€to€escape.€€Later,€the€defendant€was€arrested€afterÏleading€the€police€on€a€chase,€wrecking€his€car€and€attempting€to€escape€on€foot.€ÏApproximately€twelve€thousand€dollars€in€cash€was€retrieved.€€ÌÌà àThe€remaining€proof€consisted€of€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Clifton€R.€Tennison,Ïa€psychiatrist,€and€Robert€Wyrick,€a€licensed€clinical€social€worker.€€Dr.€TennisonÏtestified€that€as€the€medical€director€at€Helen€Ross€McNabb€Center,€he€conducted€aÏcourt„ordered€examination€of€the€defendant€on€October€31,€1991,€and€that€anotherÏCenter€psychiatrist€conducted€an€examination€on€November€8,€1991.€€He€said€thatÏseveral€"forensic€team€conferences"€were€held€regarding€the€defendant€and€that€theyÏconcluded€that€a€defense€of€insanity€could€be€supported.€€Dr.€Tennison€stated€that€inÏhis€opinion€within€a€reasonable€degree€of€medical€certainty,€the€defendant€wasÏsuffering€from€major€depression€with€psychotic€features€at€the€time€of€the€crime,Ícharacterized€by€grandiose€and€paranoid€delusions.€€Essentially,€he€believed€that€theÏdefendant€could€appreciate€that€his€conduct€was€wrong€at€the€time€it€occurred,€but€wasÏsubstantially€deprived€of€the€ability€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€theÏlaw.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Tennison€testified€that€he€had€reviewed€Mr.€Wyrick's€records€of€theÏdefendant's€treatment€and€stated€that€he€believed€that€the€defendant€had€madeÏremarkable€progress€during€psychotherapy.€€Dr.€Tennison€stated€that€the€defendantÏwas€not€a€danger€to€society,€but€needed€to€continue€in€therapy.€€He€indicated€that€heÏbelieved€that€mandatory€hospitalization€would€be€counterproductive€to€the€defendant'sÏmental€health€status,€asserting€that€the€outpatient€psychotherapy€had€been€directlyÏresponsible€for€the€defendant's€return€to€functioning€in€society.€€However,€when€askedÏwhether€the€defendant's€depression€was€recurrent€or€not,€Dr.€Tennison€admitted€thatÏhe€did€not€make€that€determination€and€indicated€that€it€would€entail€"a€lot€moreÏevaluation€to€find€out€his€remote€psychiatric€history."€€He€noted€that€the€defendant€hadÏbeen€in€therapy€with€Mr.€Wyrick€at€least€once€before€the€incident.€€ÌÌà àMr.€Wyrick€testified€that€he€was€employed€with€Ridgeview€Hospital€forÏsome€twenty„eight€years€as€a€psychotherapist.€€He€stated€that€about€a€month€after€theÏincident,€the€defendant€began€therapy€with€him€and€that€the€defendant€remained€inÏtreatment€through€the€time€of€the€trial,€being€seen€weekly.€€He€said€that€he€believedÍthat€the€defendant€was€not€a€danger€to€society€and€that€hospitalization€would€poseÏadded€stress,€being€counterproductive€although€not€ð ðdisastrous.ðð€€He€acknowledged,Ïthough,€that€continued€treatment€was€necessary€indefinitely,€although€a€point€willÏarrive€at€which€maximum€gain€will€have€been€reached.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€the€defendant€to€be€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity.€ÏIt€concluded€that€the€requirement€under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a)€of€immediateÏhospitalization€of€a€person€acquitted€of€a€crime€by€reason€of€insanity€wasÏconstitutional.€€However,€it€found€that€the€defendant€was€no€longer€a€danger€to€societyÏat€the€time€of€the€trial€and€that€immediate€hospitalization€could€result€in€irreparableÏharm€to€the€defendant€in€light€of€his€progress€since€the€time€of€the€incident.€Thus,€itÏstayed€the€defendant's€hospitalization€pending€the€disposition€of€this€appeal,Ïconditioned€upon€the€defendant€remaining€in€psychotherapy€and€maintaining€hisÏemployment.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àPreliminarily,€we€note€that€the€defendant€has€candidly€acknowledged€aÏquestion€about€our€jurisdiction€in€this€case,€a€threshold€determination€that€we€areÏobligated€to€make€in€every€case.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€13(b).€€The€state€has€not€raised€aÏsimilar€question€in€this€court.à àÌÌà àFirst,€a€question€existed€at€the€time€of€the€appeal€about€whether€theÏTennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€could€take€jurisdiction€in€a€case€in€which€theÏonly€issue€was€the€constitutionality€of€a€state€statute.€€At€that€time,€T.C.A.€ðð€16„5„108(c)Ï(Supp.€1993),€expressly€barred€our€assumption€of€jurisdiction€in€such€a€case.€ÏHowever,€early€in€this€appeal,€the€legislature€deleted€subsection€(c)€from€T.C.A.€ðð€16„5„108€so€as€to€give€us€authority€to€decide€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€1994€Tenn.€Public€Acts,€ch.Ï609,€ðð€1.ÌÌà àSecond,€a€question€may€exist€about€whether€the€trial€courtððs€ordering€theÏdefendant€to€be€hospitalized,€as€mandated€by€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a),€falls€within€ourÏjurisdiction.€€Obviously,€the€order€follows€an€acquittal€and€is€not€a€ð ðfinal€judgmentðð€in€aÏcriminal€case.€€However,€it€necessarily€occurs€within€a€case€or€proceeding€ð ðinstitutedÏwith€reference€to€or€arising€out€of€a€criminal€caseðð€for€which€we€are€specificallyÏinvested€with€review€authority.€€T.C.A.€ðð€16„5„108(a)(2).ÌÌà àAlso,€we€note€that€after€the€statutory€period€of€evaluation,€an€insanityÏacquittee€is€entitled€to€a€hearing€in€the€original€trial€court€to€determine€if€commitment€orÏfurther€treatment€is€warranted€and€that€appellate€review€of€that€determination€is€by€ourÏcourt.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(b)(1)€and€(d).€€Given€these€circumstances,€it€is€onlyÏpractical€to€assume€that€we€have€jurisdiction,€as€well,€to€review€the€trial€courtððs€initialÏhospitalization€order.€€ÌÌà àWe€must€note,€though,€that€the€fact€that€we€have€authority€over€this€caseÏand€the€constitutional€issue€raised€does€not€necessarily€mean€that€the€defendant€hasÏproperly€appealed€the€case.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€defendant€filed€a€notice€ofÏappeal€and€has€otherwise€conducted€this€case€as€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€toÏRule€3(b),€T.R.A.P.€€However,€nothing€in€Rule€3(b)€provides€for€an€appeal€as€of€rightÏfrom€a€post„acquittal€order€in€a€criminal€case.€€In€this€respect,€we€recognize€that€inÏòòState€v.€McCaryóó,€815€S.W.2d€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991),€this€court€accepted€anÏappeal€as€of€right€from€a€trial€court's€refusal€to€expunge€public€records€of€dismissedÏcharges€even€though€the€appeal€was€not€expressly€authorized€by€Rule€3(b).€€In€doingÏso,€it€viewed€the€omission€of€such€an€action€from€the€appellate€rules€to€be€an€oversightÏbecause€ð ðthe€statute€establishing€jurisdiction€in€this€Court€apparently€anticipates€thatÏall€final€judgments€arising€out€of€criminal€cases€are€appealable.ðð€€815€S.W.2d€at€221.ÌÌà àWe€are€not€so€confident,€though,€that€òòMcCaryóóððs€result€should€control€inÏthe€present€case.€€The€initial€hospitalization€order€is€essentially€in€the€nature€of€anÏinterlocutory€order€in€that€the€matter€is€required€by€statute€to€be€returned€to€the€trialÏcourt€to€determine€whether,€at€least,€future€outpatient€treatment€is€warranted.€€òòSeeóóÏT.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(b)(1).€€In€fact,€with€the€initial€order€being€one€imposed€solely€byÏstatutory€mandate,€leaving€nothing€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€until€the€matter€isÏreturned€to€the€court,€we€do€not€view€the€initial€order€to€be€a€final€judgment€order€thatÍwould€allow€an€appeal€as€of€right.€€In€this€respect,€the€provision€in€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(d)Ïfor€an€appeal€to€this€court€of€a€ð ðfinal€adjudicationðð€can€only€be€a€reference,€in€context,Ïto€the€trial€courtððs€ultimate€discretionary€action.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€appellateÏreview€of€a€trial€courtððs€initial€hospitalization€order€for€an€insanity€acquittee€underÏT.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a)€should€have€been€invoked€through€a€discretionary€appealÏpursuant€to€either€Rule€9€or€Rule€10,€T.R.A.P.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€However,€given€the€lack€of€objection€byÏthe€state€and€the€fact€that€we€believe€we€have€jurisdiction€to€act€in€this€case,€weÏbelieve€that€good€cause€exists€for€us€to€suspend€the€appellate€rules€in€order€that€theÏcase€may€be€resolved€upon€its€merits.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€2.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a)€violates€his€dueÏprocess€and€equal€protection€rights€because€it€does€not€allow€the€trial€court€to€exerciseÏany€discretion€as€to€whether€an€insanity€acquittee€must€undergo€the€sixty€to€ninety€dayÏhospitalization€for€diagnosis€and€evaluation.€€The€defendant€argues€that€he€hasÏproven€that€he€was€neither€mentally€ill€nor€dangerous€at€the€time€of€acquittal.€€HeÏmaintains€that€the€legislature€enacted€the€mandatory€hospitalization€provision€in€orderÏto€prevent€potentially€dangerous€insanity€acquittees€from€being€released€without€firstÍundergoing€some€type€of€mental€evaluation.€€He€contends€that€he€is€different€from€mostÏinsanity€acquittees€because€he€voluntarily€began€psychiatric€treatment€at€the€time€ofÏthe€commission€of€the€offense,€as€opposed€merely€to€undergoing€a€mental€evaluationÏfor€trial€purposes.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€it€would€violate€his€due€process€andÏequal€protection€rights€if€the€state€held€him€for€evaluation€when€he€has€demonstratedÏhis€present€sanity€and€lack€of€dangerousness.ÌÑ€4ÑÇà àIn€order€to€put€the€defendant's€arguments€into€context,€we€should€explainÏhow€Tennessee€dealt€with€the€issue€of€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€trial.ÏAlthough€the€law€presumes€the€sanity€of€one€accused€of€a€crime,€òòState€v.€œOverbayóó,›€874ÏS.W.2d€645,€650€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€insanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense€was€ð ðaÏdefense€to€prosecution€if,€.€.€.€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€the€person€lackedÏthe€substantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€person's€conductÏor€to€conform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law."€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„11„501(a)Ï[amended€1995].× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Although€sanity€was€presumed,€if€the€evidence€presented€by€eitherÏthe€defendant€or€the€state€raised€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€sanity,€theÏstate€had€the€burden€of€proving€the€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòSeeóó€œòòCollins›€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€179,€183„84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973);€òòGraham€v.ÏStateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€544€(Tenn.€1977).€€In€this€fashion,€a€verdict€of€not€guilty€byÏreason€of€insanity€means€that,€at€least,€some€evidence€of€insanity€existed€and€aÏreasonable€doubt€was€found€to€exist€with€regard€to€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€allegedÏoffense.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòGrahamóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€544,€our€supreme€court€recommended€that€theÏlegislature€correct€"a€deficiency€in€Tennessee€law€relating€to€the€disposition€of€aÏcriminal€defendant€found€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity."€€Under€T.C.A.€ðð€33„709,€theÍdistrict€attorney€had€the€option€of€seeking€hospitalization€of€an€insanity€acquittee€if€heÏdetermined€that€it€was€justified.€€The€supreme€court€stated€that€the€trial€court€shouldÏhave€the€authority€to€commit€an€insanity€acquittee,€instead€of€leaving€such€a€decisionÏto€the€district€attorney's€discretion.€€òòGrahamóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€544.€€The€legislatureÏsubsequently€amended€the€statute,€1977€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts,€ch.€396,€and€imposed€theÏrequirement€that€all€insanity€acquittees€be€detained€for€sixty€to€ninety€days€forÏdiagnosis€and€evaluation.€€The€supreme€court€stated€that€the€"new€legislation€shouldÏsignificantly€reduce€the€risk€that€persons€acquitted€by€reason€of€insanity€will€beÏprematurely€released,€or€released€without€mandatory€out„patient€treatment."€€òòState€v.ÏClaytonóó,€656€S.W.2d€344,€353€(Tenn.€1983).€€€ÌÌà àUnder€€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a),€the€trial€court€is€required€to€order€an€insanityÏacquittee€to€be€detained€for€diagnosis€and€evaluation€for€a€minimum€of€sixty€days€andÏa€maximum€of€ninety€days€in€a€hospital€or€treatment€facility.€œ× ƒ6 ××  ×›€€After€the€diagnosis€andÍevaluation€period,€if€certification€is€made€that€the€acquittee€is€committable€under€the€Ïcivil€involuntary€care€and€treatment€standards€provided€in€T.C.A.€ðð€33„6„104,€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€must€file€a€complaint€in€criminal€court€seeking€both€judicialÏcommitment€and€an€order€requiring€outpatient€treatment.€€T.C.A.€ðð€€33„7„303(b)(1).€€IfÏthere€is€no€certification€that€the€acquittee€is€committable,€the€district€attorney€generalÏmust€file€a€complaint€seeking€only€outpatient€treatment€at€a€mental€health€facility.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(b)(1).€€ÌÌà@ àÌà@ àò òAÌà@ àDUE€PROCESSó óÌà àWe€recognize€that€involuntary€commitment€to€a€mental€institutionÏconstitutes€a€deprivation€of€liberty€that€invokes€the€constitutional€protection€ofÏprocedural€due€process.€€òòJones€v.€United€Statesóó,€463€U.S.€354,€361,€103€S.€Ct.€3043,Í3048€(1983);€òòAddington€v.€Texasóó,€441€U.S.€418,€425,€99€S.€Ct.€1804,€1809€(1979).€ÏThus,€although€a€state€may€rely€upon€its€police€powers€to€confine€the€dangerouslyÏmentally€ill,€it€must€insure€that€their€constitutional€rights€are€safeguarded.€€òòSeeóó€òòJacksonÏv.€Indianaóó,€406€U.S.€715,€736,€92€S.€Ct.€1845,€1857€(1972).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€context€of€a€criminal€defendant€who€attempts€to€assert€mentalÏillness€as€a€defense,€special€interests€have€been€recognized€to€be€of€concern.€€First,Ïwe€note€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€refused€to€articulate€an€insanityÏdefense€in€constitutional€terms€and€has€chosen€instead€to€leave€its€significance€to€theÏindividual€states.€€òòPowell€v.€Texasóó,€392€U.S.€514,€535„36,€88€S.€Ct.€2145,€2156€(1968);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Hammockóó,€867€S.W.2d€8,€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(The€manner€inÏwhich€the€insanity€defense€is€presented€to€the€jury€is€left€for€the€stateððs€determination.)€ÏAlso,€the€Supreme€Court€has€previously€refused€to€hold€that€due€process€requires€theÏadoption€of€any€given€insanity€test€or€allocation€of€a€particular€burden€of€proof.€€òòSeeóóÏòòLeland€v.€Oregonóó,€343€U.S.€790,€799„801,€72€S.€Ct.€1002,€1007„08€(1952).€€ÌÌà àAs€a€result,€numerous€means€have€been€used€both€to€protect€the€publicÏfrom€potentially€dangerous€defendants€acquitted€by€reason€of€insanity€and€to€insureÏthat€the€acquittee€is€provided€with€due€process€and€the€equal€protection€of€law.€ÏSeveral€states€make€commitment€mandatory€after€acquittal€by€reason€of€insanity.€€òòSeeóóÏòòLynch€v.€Overholseróó,€369€U.S.€705,€708„09€n.4,€82€S.€Ct.€1063,€1066€n.4€(1962).€€InÍthis€respect,€three€states,€Colorado,€Kansas,€and€Michigan,€have€had€provisionsÏsimilar€to€that€existing€in€Tennessee€at€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€conviction€relative€toÏthe€state€having€the€burden€of€proving€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€theÏmandatory€hospitalization€upon€acquittal.€€In€òòIngles€v.€Peopleóó,€22€P.2d€1109,€1111Ï(Colo.€1933),€the€Colorado€Supreme€Court€stated€that€when€a€defendant€properlyÏraises€the€insanity€defense,€the€burden€is€on€the€prosecution€to€prove€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€defendant€was€sane€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€theÏcrime.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Linnóó,€840€P.2d€1133,€1141€(Kan.€1992);€òòIn€re€CertifiedÏQuestionóó,€390€N.W.2d€620€œ(Mich.€1986).›€€œLater,›€in€response€to€due€process€and€equalÏprotection€challenges,€the€Colorado€Supreme€Court€upheld€the€provision€of€theÏinsanity€statute€that€required€the€trial€court€to€commit€an€insanity€acquitteeÏautomatically€without€a€precommitment€hearing€in€order€to€determine€the€acquitteeððsÏmental€condition€and€need€for€treatment€at€the€time€of€the€commitment.€€The€courtÏstated€that€where€the€defendant€has€been€adjudicated€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanityÏfor€acts€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 àwhich,€but€for€his€insanity,€would€be€punishable€as€crimes,Ïthat€adjudication€furnishes€a€legitimate€basis€for€theÏimmediate€commitment€of€the€defendant€to€an€institution€forÏobservation€and€examination,€as€well€as€any€neededÏtreatment,€so€that€a€reliable€determination€might€be€made€ofÏhis€mental€condition€and€what€danger,€if€any,€he€poses€toÏhimself€and€others.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòPeople€v.€Chavezóó,€629€P.2d€1040,€1043,€1048€(Colo.€1981).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòIn€re€Jonesóó,Ï612€P.2d€1211,€1228€(Kan.€1980);€òòPeople€v.€McQuillanóó,€221€N.W.2d€569,€576€(Mich.Ï1974).€ÌÌà àThe€òòChavezóó€court€considered€several€factors,€including€the€stateððsÏinterest€in€committing€those€mentally€ill€persons€who€have€committed€dangerous€actsÏand€the€fact€that€it€is€reasonable€to€infer€from€an€insanity€acquittal€that€the€defendantÏsuffered€from€a€mental€disease€at€the€time€he€committed€the€crime.€€Also,€it€stated€that€itÏwas€not€ð ðunfair€.€.€.€to€believe€that€the€disorder€likely€is€a€continuing€one€since€mentalÏillness€for€the€most€part€is€a€long€lasting€phenomenon.ðð€€òòChavezóó,€629€P.2d€at€1048.€ÏThe€court€noted€that€an€insanity€adjudication€represented€a€determination€that€theÏprosecution€failed€to€prove€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€but€concluded€thatÏð ð[e]ven€under€this€interpretation,€it€has€been€held€that€a€judicially€determined€doubt€asÏto€an€accusedððs€sanity€provides€a€sufficient€warrant€for€immediate€commitment€andÏfurther€examination€as€to€his€present€mental€condition.€€òòE.góó.,€òòBolton€v.€Harrisóó,€395€F.2dÏ642,€651€(D.C.€Cir.€1968);€òòRagsdale€v.€Overholseróó,€281€F.2d€943€(D.C.€Cir.€1960);ÏòòState€v.€Altoóó,€589€P.2d€402€(Alaska€1979);€òòPeople€v.€œMcQuillanóó,€392€Mich.€511,›€221ÏN.W.2d€569€(Mich.€1974).ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€1047.ÌÌà àAlso,€the€òòChavezóó€court€recognized€the€acquitteeððs€substantial€libertyÏinterest€in€avoiding€involuntary€commitment€to€a€mental€hospital,€but€it€concluded€thatÍdue€process€did€not€require€that€a€hearing€precede€the€insanity€commitment.€€TheÏprimary€purpose€of€such€a€commitment€is€to€allow€the€state€to€assess€the€acquitteeððsÏmental€status€and€a€precommitment€hearing€ð ðððwould€be€meaningless€until€trainedÏmedical€experts€had€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€observe€and€examine€the€subjectÏand€report€their€finding.€€[Thus,]€some€time€gap€between€the€verdict€and€the€appraisalÏof€the€defendantððs€then€existing€mental€condition€is€unavoidable€under€any€schemeÏwhich€would€provide€adequate€safeguards.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€1048„49€(quoting€òòRagsdale€v.ÏOverholseróó,€281€F.2d€at€948).€€The€court€determined€that€due€process€is€satisfied€byÏprocedures€for€release€that€insure€against€the€risk€of€continued€detention€withoutÏcause,€and€significantly€for€our€purposes,€the€court€concluded€that€the€statutoryÏrequirement€of€a€release€hearing€occurring€after€180€days€of€initial€confinement€did€notÏviolate€due€process.€€ÌÌà àWe€agree€with€the€reasoning€in€òòChavezóó€regarding€due€processÏconsiderations€of€a€mandatory€hospitalization€statute€for€an€insanity€acquittee.€ÏAutomatic€commitment€of€an€insanity€acquittee€provides€the€state€with€an€in„depthÏopportunity€to€assess€the€defendantððs€current€mental€status€and€to€determine€whetherÏhe€poses€a€potential€danger€upon€his€release.€€We€agree€that€the€fact€that€the€trialÏcourt€found€a€reasonable€doubt€as€to€the€defendantððs€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offenseÏprovides€sufficient€reason€for€further€examination.€€Moreover,€the€sixty„to„ninety„dayÏperiod€between€the€defendantððs€acquittal€and€the€hearing€to€appraise€his€then€existingÍmental€condition€is€necessary€to€provide€the€medical€experts€with€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€observe€him.€€Without€an€evaluation,€a€trial€court€would€be€forcedÏprematurely€to€evaluate€the€potential€danger€an€insanity€acquittee€poses€to€himself€orÏothers.€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.€De€Andaóó,€170€Cal.€Rptr.€830,€834€(Cal.€Ct.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,Ï451€U.S.€990€(1980).ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€heldÏthat€a€state€may€not€detain€an€acquittee€who€has€recovered€his€sanity€and€is€no€longerÏdangerous€without€affording€him€due€process.€€In€òòFoucha€v.€Louisianaóó,€504€U.S.€71,Ï112€S.€Ct.€1780€(1992),€the€defendant€was€found€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity€andÏautomatically€committed€under€Louisiana€law,€which€also€required€the€defendant€toÏremain€institutionalized€until€he€proved€that€he€was€no€longer€dangerous.€€The€CourtÏconcluded€that€the€law€was€unconstitutional€because€it€allowed€the€indefinite,Ïcontinued€confinement€of€an€acquittee€without€a€civil€commitment€proceeding€andÏwithout€any€determination€of€current€mental€illness.€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€at€77„86,€112€S.€Ct.€atÏ1784„89.ÌÌà àWe€do€not€view€the€defendantððs€disposition€to€be€controlled€by€òòFouchaóó.€ÏAs€Justice€OððConnor,€the€fifth€vote€for€the€majority,€pointed€out€in€her€concurringÏopinion,€the€Court€was€not€addressing€more€narrowly€drawn€laws€that€only€provide€forÏthe€detention€of€insanity€acquittees.€€In€fact,€she€suggested€that€it€might€ð ðbe€permissibleÍfor€Louisiana€to€confine€an€insanity€acquittee€who€has€regained€sanity€if€.€.€.€the€natureÏand€duration€of€detention€were€tailored€to€reflect€pressing€public€safety€concernsÏrelated€to€the€acquitteeððs€continuing€dangerousness.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€88„89,€112€S.€Ct.€at€1789.ÌÌà àFurthermore,€as€previously€noted,€we€believe€the€state€has€a€strongÏinterest€in€automatic€commitment€and€ð ðin€avoiding€the€need€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóóÏcommitment€hearing€following€every€insanity€acquittal€.€.€.€.€€Instead€of€focusing€on€theÏcritical€question€of€whether€the€acquittee€has€recovered,€the€new€proceeding€likelyÏwould€have€to€relitigate€much€of€the€criminal€trial.ðð€€òòJones€v.€United€Statesóó,€463€U.S.Ï354,€366,€103€S.€Ct.€3043,€3050€(1983).× ƒ7 ××  ×€€Obviously,€the€fact€that€the€defendantÏacknowledged€that€violent€acts€were€committed€indicates€dangerousness.€€In€thisÏrespect,€we€agree€with€the€jurisdictions€that€have€concluded€that€the€legislature€canÏreasonably€enact€a€mandatory€hospitalization€provision€in€order€to€assure€the€publicÏthat€insanity€acquittees€will€not€be€released€until€their€recovery€from€past€mental€illnessÏis€definitely€established.€€òòSeeóó€òòLynchóó,€369€U.S.€at€716,€82€S.€Ct.€1070;€òòBoltonóó,€395€F.2dÏat€649;€òòIn€re€Franklinóó,€496€P.2d€465,€470€(Cal.€1972);€òòChavezóó,€629€P.2d€at€1048;€òòIn€reÏJonesóó,€612€P.2d€at€1224;€òòHarris€v.€Oklahoma€County€Dist.€Courtóó,€750€P.2d€1129,€1131Ï(Okla.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€that€in€light€of€theÏð ðuncertainty€of€diagnosis€in€[the€mental€health]€field€and€the€tentativeness€ofÏprofessional€judgment,ðð€the€ð ðcourts€should€pay€particular€deference€to€reasonableÏlegislative€judgments.ðð€€òòJonesóó,€463€U.S.€at€364€n.13,€113€S.€Ct.€at€3050€n.13.€€TheÏTennessee€legislature€has€provided€mentally€ill€defendants€with€the€right€to€anÏabsolute€insanity€defense€and,€thus,€has€the€prerogative€to€impose€conditions€on€thoseÏwho€successfully€rely€upon€such€a€defense.€€We€do€not€think€that€the€legislature€actedÏunreasonably€in€allowing€a€definite€period€of€sixty€to€ninety€days€for€examination€andÏdiagnosis.€€ð ðDue€process€requires€that€the€nature€and€duration€of€commitment€bearÏsome€reasonable€relation€to€the€purpose€for€which€the€individual€is€committed.ðð€ÏòòJacksonóó,€406€U.S.€at€738,€92€S.€Ct.€at€1858.€€The€legislature€undoubtedly€consideredÏthe€uncertainties€of€psychiatric€evaluation€in€establishing€this€time€period€and€weÏcannot€say€that€it€is€unreasonable€in€length.€€òòCfóó.€òòChavezóó,€629€P.2d€at€1049„50€(six„month€initial€commitment€does€not€violate€due€process);€òòMcQuillanóó,€221€N.W.2d€at€576Ï(sixty„day€automatic€detention€is€reasonable).€€ÌÌà@ àò òBÌà@ àEQUAL€PROTECTIONó óÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€that€he€would€be€deprived€of€his€right€toÏequal€protection€if€he€were€forced€to€undergo€an€evaluation€in€a€mental€hospitalÏwithout€any€showing€of€need€for€the€commitment.€€He€maintains€that€he€has€shownÍthrough€expert€testimony€that€he€was€neither€mentally€ill€nor€dangerous€at€the€time€ofÏhis€conviction.€€Although€the€defendant€does€not€specifically€claim€that€he€is€entitled€toÏthe€same€protection€as€one€who€is€civilly€committed,€he€argues€that€he€has€the€right€toÏa€hearing€in€which€the€trial€court€would€have€the€discretion€to€determine€whether€or€notÏhe€should€be€subject€to€the€sixty€to€ninety„day€evaluation,€which€essentially€would€beÏthe€equivalent€of€a€civil€commitment€hearing.€€In€other€words,€the€defendant€arguesÏthat€€equal€protection€prevents€his€commitment€without€the€equivalent€determinationÏmade€for€civil€commitments.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àð ðEqual€protection€does€not€require€that€all€persons€be€dealt€withÏidentically,€but€it€does€require€that€a€distinction€made€have€some€relevance€to€theÏpurpose€for€which€the€classification€is€made.ðð€€òòBaxstrom€v.€Heroldóó,€383€U.S.€107,€113,Ï86€S.€Ct.€760,€763€(1966).€€In€the€absence€of€a€suspect€classification,€such€as,€race,€orÏof€an€intrusion€upon€a€fundamental€constitutional€right,× ƒ8 ××  ×€the€challenged€classificationÏmust€ð ðbear€some€rational€relationship€to€legitimate€state€purposes.ðð€€òòSan€AntonioÏIndep.€Sch.€Dist.€v.€Rodreguezóó,€411€U.S.€1,€40,€93€S.€Ct.€1278,€1300€(1973).€€NoÏsuspect€classification€is€involved€in€this€case.€€Also,€the€mandatory€commitmentÏrequirement€does€not€implicate€a€fundamental€right€because,€while€commitmentÍconstitutes€a€significant€deprivation€of€liberty,€ð ða€person€found€not€guilty€by€reason€ofÏinsanity€enjoys€no€fundamental€right€to€unrestricted€liberty€upon€that€adjudication.ðð€ÏòòChavezóó,€629€P.2d€at€1052.€€ÌÌà àSignificantly,€the€defendant€in€the€present€case€admitted€that€heÏcommitted€the€acts€that€would€otherwise€constitute€criminal€offenses,€but€that€he€did€soÏwhile€mentally€ill.€€In€this€respect,€the€defendant€placed€himself€in€a€different€positionÏthan€other€criminal€defendants€or€civil€commitment€defendants€by€choosing€to€claimÏthat€he€was€not€mentally€responsible€for€his€acts.€€Moreover,€we€also€conclude€that€theÏrecord€on€appeal€does€not€support€the€trial€courtððs€ð ðfindingsðð€that€the€defendant€was€noÏlonger€a€danger€to€society€at€the€time€of€trial€and€that€his€hospitalization€would€result€inÏirreparable€harm€to€him.€€It€is€apparent€that€the€extent€of€the€defendantððs€potentialÏhealth€problems€was€not€actually€known€by€Dr.€Tennison,€who€acknowledged€ð ða€lotÏmore€evaluationðð€could€occur.€€Also,€Mr.€Wyrick€stated€that€continued€treatment€wasÏneeded€ð ðindefinitely,ðð€and€he€admitted€that€hospitalization€would€not€be€ð ðdisastrous,ððÏalthough€he€viewed€it€to€be€counterproductive.ÌÌà àThus,€we€cannot€say,€even€as€a€matter€of€evidentiary€fact,€that€theÏdefendant€was€shown€to€be€in€no€need€of€evaluation€and€treatment€relative€to€hisÏmental€health.€€In€other€words,€although€he€may€avoid€the€ordinary€criminal€penalty€byÏsuccessfully€relying€on€the€defense€of€insanity,€it€is€not€unreasonable€for€the€legislatureÍto€provide€for€a€means€by€which€the€state€can€determine€that€he€no€longer€suffers€fromÏthe€same€mental€abnormality€that€caused€the€ð ðcriminalðð€acts.€€In€this€fashion,€theÏcommitment€of€an€insanity€acquittee€bears€a€rational€relationship€to€legitimate€stateÏpurposes€so€as€to€comply€with€equal€protection€of€the€law.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€we€note€that€we€are€not€dealing€with€the€situation€in€which€theÏstate€requested€that€the€defendant€be€institutionalized€for€extensive€evaluation€shortlyÏbefore€trial€and€we€need€not€speak€to€that€situation.€€The€defendant€was€examinedÏonce€by€a€psychiatrist€at€the€trial€courtððs€direction€and€this€examination€did€not€takeÏplace€for€approximately€ten€months€after€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€Although€theÏdefendant€did€enter€therapy€following€the€crime,€it€consisted€of€weekly€sessions€with€aÏclinical€social€worker€on€an€outpatient€basis.€€We€conclude€that€this€type€of€diagnosisÏand€evaluation€is€not€what€the€legislature€intended€and€the€trial€court€should€not€beÏforced€to€evaluate€the€defendantððs€condition€without€the€benefit€of€the€intenseÏevaluation,€supervised€by€mental€health€professionals€as€provided€for€by€theÏlegislature.€€ÌÌà àFor€these€reasons,€we€conclude€that€T.C.A.€ðð€33„7„303(a)€isÏconstitutionally€applied€in€this€case.€€Therefore,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌœCONCUR:›Ìœ›ÌÌ_______________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌ€ÌÌòòœ(NOT€PARTICIPATING€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó›ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌ