Vermont lawmakers are weighing whether the state needs a locked facility for defendants who, after being evaluated, are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity but do not require psychiatric hospitalization under clinical standards. The discussion has been sharpened by the case of Darren Pronto, charged in the slashing death of Emily Hamman, and by the experience that families and the legal system can face when competency does not quickly change.
Kelly Carroll, Hamman’s mother, has argued that the system left what she considers a preventable gap: Pronto was previously charged with other violent crimes, later found incompetent to stand trial, and ordered to receive treatment in a psychiatric hospital. After mental health officials said his condition stabilized, state mental health authorities were required to release him into community monitoring, and Carroll alleges that it was after that release that he murdered her daughter.
Vermont’s larger challenge is that, unlike nearly all states, it has had no facility designed specifically for people who are unable to proceed in criminal court because of competency findings yet are not eligible for hospital-level care. Karen Barber, general counsel for the Vermont Department of Mental Health, said the state has “real gaps in our system,” describing how current routes for people deemed incompetent or insane depend on whether they have a clinical need for inpatient psychiatric treatment.
Under Vermont’s approach, if a court finds someone incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, the case can be moved either to family court or to the custody of the Department of Mental Health for treatment. But the Department of Mental Health takes someone into its custody only when there is a clinical need for treatment, according to Barber. If the case is moved to family court, it is reviewed routinely every several months. If the defendant remains incompetent in criminal court, the matter can remain unresolved, and Barber said mental health professionals do not have the ability to keep someone hospitalized unless acute symptoms justify it—leaving uncertainty about what happens when a person does not meet the inpatient threshold.
Sen. Nader Hashim, a Democrat from Windham, described that stalemate in a Jan. 20 committee hearing on the bill. He said the situation is that an incompetent-to-stand-trial case can “float[] off into the ether” unless someone’s competency changes. Carroll said the lack of closure has prolonged her family’s suffering, and she said Pronto—who has not been convicted of the alleged murder—was again deemed incompetent to stand trial. She also said Pronto has refused about 13 competency evaluations over roughly three years in jail.
For the new proposal, lawmakers are focusing on S.193, which would create a Vermont Department of Corrections-controlled locked facility for this limited category of defendants: those found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity who do not meet the clinical threshold for psychiatric hospitalization. Under the bill’s framework, people could be committed to the facility only if they faced a life sentence for the crimes they were accused of. Barber said that even with a facility for the bill’s targeted population, defendants who need hospital-level clinical treatment could still receive that care in a psychiatric hospital.
Supporters say the bill is intended to address practical consequences of the current framework. Sen. Ginny Lyons, a Democrat from Chittenden Southeast and lead sponsor who chairs the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, said she understands the need to segregate someone who has committed a violent offense from the surrounding community. At the same time, she said she does not want those people housed in a facility like a prison. Lyons said the bill is designed to serve both “the perpetrator well” and to respect victims’ rights, and she said “That’s what’s been driving this conversation.”
Opponents argue that the proposal is too broad and could blur distinct legal pathways for mental health, competency restoration, and public safety. Rep. Anne Donahue, a Democrat, said a facility for the bill’s covered population is completely unnecessary. Donahue said people needing clinical treatment are sent to the proper medical setting, and she said existing state law can already funnel someone who is a threat to public safety into the custody of the Department of Corrections. She also said restoring competency should be handled differently and does not have to be done in a locked facility.
Donahue further warned that the bill’s mechanism could allow a court to remove liberties at a lower threshold than she believes is appropriate. She said someone could be committed to the facility as long as the court orders them there, and she warned that would allow the court to “take away their liberties at a much lower threshold.” She said she was concerned about merging different populations as well, noting that a previous version of a similar proposal had grouped people with mental illnesses and people with disabilities together. Lyons responded that the health care worlds are distinct, saying that mental illnesses can often be improved through counseling and medication while treating disabilities like dementia is different.
The dispute over S.193 reflects the tension lawmakers say they face repeatedly in competency cases: how to reconcile defendants’ mental-health needs and legal rights with the justice and safety concerns that arise when criminal proceedings cannot move forward. For Carroll, that tension is personal and immediate—she has been forced, she said, to return repeatedly to court dates that disrupt her life—while for state mental health officials and some legislators, the question is whether Vermont should create a new custody option to prevent unresolved cases from leaving defendants and communities stuck in a cycle of monitoring and re-evaluation.