DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY,

COLORADO
7325 South Potomac Street
Centennial, Colorado 80112

Plaintiff(s): THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

COLORADO A COURT USEO

Case Number: O4CRI 281

Defendant(s): TERESA LYNN flkla TERESA SPITZ Div.: 407

ORDER REGRARDING THE COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE

AT
PUEBLO’S NOTICE OF TEMPORARY PHYSICAL REMOVAL FOR TREA
TMENT
AND REHABILITATION INCREASED PRIVILEGES
—

THIS MATTER comes before the Court for consideration of the Colorado Menta
l
Health Institute at Peublo’s (“CMHIP” or “State Hospital”) Notice of Tempo
rary Physical
Removal for Treatment and Rehabilitation — Increased Privileges (“Notice”). The
People lodged an objection. Pursuant to §16-8-118, C.R.S., the Court conduc
ted a
hearing on March 28, 2011. The Court received testimony from Doctors Elissa Ball
and
Danielle Weittenhiller. The victim, Peter Spitz, addressed the Court. The Court
now
enters the following Order.

The Defendant has been committed to CMHIP since November 23, 2005,

following a jury verdict that the Defendant was Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity to

charges which included Murder in the First Degree and Attempted Murder in the First

Degree.

The trial was conducted before a judicial officer who has since retired from the

bench.
 The matter has previously been before the Court for consideration of a Notice of

Temporary Physical Removal for Treatment and Rehabilitation on January 30, 2009. At

that hearing Dr. Ball testified. The Court entered an order on February 3, 2009,

granting the State Hospital’s Request for Temporary Physical Removal. As the

supervision of this Court has been invoked by the People’s Objection the Court takes

judicial notice of the proceedings from January 30, 2009.

Attached to the Notice is a Disposition Committee Report (“Report”) dated

December 23, 2010. This very thorough Report ultimately recommends “Off Grounds

Unsupervised Privileges and Community Placement.” The Court notes that neither Dr.

Ball nor Dr. Weittenhiller sit as members of the Disposition Committee. The Report

draws upon information from the two doctors but also draws upon other sources of

information.

The Court has compared Doctor Ball’s testimony from January 30, 2009, with her

testimony from March 28, 2011. In comparing that testimony it is clear that Doctor Ball

is working closely with the Defendant to advance her in treatment consistent with the

Defendant’s response to treatment. As in January, 2009, the Defendant has reached

her maximum potential in the current treatment setting and Doctor Ball reasonably

requests the ability to expand the treatment setting. Doctor Ball anticipates a graduated

expansion starting first with temporary physical removal for lengthening periods of time

and eventually allowing the Defendant’s residence in the community. The Defendant

would be supervised during this process by Doctor Ball with the assistance of the State

2
Hospital’s Forensic Community Based Services Staff. Regression would be applied if

deemed appropriate.

Doctor Weittenhiller testified to her past, current, and anticipated future

treatment of the Defendant. She testified in a manner consistent with Doctor Ball

concerning the added therapeutic benefit to the increased privileges being sought. At

one point Doctor Weittenhiller was asked whether she had taken into consideration

information that the Defendant was seeking release from the State Hospital so she

could “finish the job” regarding the murder of Peter Spitz. This information was

presented to the doctor with very little context and despite an invitation from the Court

to present this information in a more defined way, the prosecution failed to follow-up.

Due to the vague nature of this information the doctor declined to state with any

certainty how she would assess her opinion of the propriety of the current request from

CMHIP.

Peter Spitz, in his statements to the Court, also talked about the threats

conveyed to him through a third-party that were contained in a letter. Mr. Spitz however

failed to place these threats in a temporal context. The history of this case and the

history of the relationship between Mr. Spitz and the Defendant indicate shifts in

feelings on the part of Mr. Spitz towards the Defendant. Mr. Spitz made comments

about the verdict in this case but the record supports a conclusion that the verdict

reached by the jury in this case was influenced by Mr. Spitz’ testimony.

The Court understands Mr. Spitz’ concerns for personal safety and the safety of

his child but the Court cannot ignore the premise of Colorado’s system of treatment

3
when an individual is found not guilty by reason of insanity. The Court believes that the
ant
supervision the State Hospital will apply will be for both the treatment of the Defend

and the protection of the public, including Mr. Spitz.

The Court grants the State Hospital’s request of temporary physical removal of

the Defendant from the State Hospital and further grants the request to allow the
Hospital’s
Defendant’s residence in the community under the supervision of the State

Forensic Community Based Services staff.

th
28
Dated this 30th day of March, 2011, nunc pro tunc, the of March, 2011.

BY THE COURT

Michael Spear
District Court Judge

Copy of this order to be sent to:

LDefendant’s attorney: J O’Connor
District Attorney: J Franks
DtColorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo