A woman spent nearly two decades in the state’s custody after she was found not guilty by reason of insanity of killing her husband. An Adams County judge denied her unconditional release in 2020, despite testimony from medical experts that Priscilla Lee Jansma presented little to no risk of violence.

Now, the state’s second-highest court has ordered Jansma’s release from government supervision after concluding that former District Court Judge Tomee Crespin failed to apply the correct standard when evaluating Jansma’s level of dangerousness.

“Jansma – who was sixty-five years old at the time of the hearing – has no criminal history and has been violent only once in her life, when she shot her concededly abusive husband more than twenty years ago,” wrote Judge David H. Yun in the Court of Appeals’ decision issued on Feb. 14.

In June 1999, Jansma shot and killed her husband during a psychotic episode. The Denver Post reported at the time Jansma had said to police, “Jesus told me it was OK to do it.” A trial judge found her not guilty by reason of insanity and committed Jansma to the Colorado Department of Human Services.

Jansma spent time at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo to receive treatment, then transitioned to a community placement in 2005. She never experienced a manic episode or exhibited symptoms of severe mental illness since. In early 2018, a court granted Jansma’s release, subject to conditions for continued treatment, given the low risk of danger she presented to herself or the community.

Shortly afterward, Jansma petitioned the court for unconditional release, saying she wanted to “move forward with her life and just go somewhere and build a quiet life for herself.”

Under Colorado law, if the government wants to prevent a person’s release from state supervision, it must present evidence showing the person does not meet the release criteria. Those requesting release must then demonstrate that they do not have an “abnormal mental condition” that would likely cause them to be a danger to the community or to themselves.

In August 2020, two years after Jansma filed her petition for unconditional release, Crespin held a hearing. Jansma called several witnesses, while the government called none. The testimony all pointed toward Jansma’s suitability to leave state supervision.

Psychologist Mac Bradley concluded that Jansma’s psychotic symptoms resolved quickly and she had no impairment in her perception of reality for the subsequent 20 years. Bradley told the court that it would be concerning if Jansma stopped taking her medication, but even if she did, he doubted Jansma would be dangerous.

Another doctor, Heath Canfield, determined in 2019 that Jansma was ineligible for unconditional release because of his concerns about Jansma’s ability to continue taking medication and her potential for marijuana use if the state’s supervision went away entirely. However, Canfield’s concerns dissipated by the time of the hearing and he believed Jansma was no longer a risk – even off of her medication.

Finally, Crespin heard from Jansma and her son, who personally guaranteed that his mother would never stop taking her medications.

Crespin issued an order in October 2020 denying Jansma’s unconditional release. She acknowledged Jansma had complied with her conditions of treatment since 2018, but also pointed out that Jansma had once, in 2014, ceased taking her medication. Crespin believed the “history of noncompliance” was problematic.

Given the “consistent opinions of the medical professionals that the Defendant’s risk level is unknown should the Defendant stop taking her medications, the Court finds that such conditions remain to be necessary,” she wrote.

Upon review, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals determined Crespin had misapplied the legal standard by focusing on the “unknown” risk if Jansma were to stop taking her medication. 

“The critical question is whether Jansma is likely to be dangerous, not whether some possibility exists that she could be,” Yun explained. “And the evidence did not support a probability of dangerousness. The most Dr. Bradley and Dr. Canfield conceded was that they could not say for sure whether Jansma would be dangerous if she stopped taking her medications.”

Yun pointed out that even after Jansma went off her medications in 2014, she remained nonviolent. The panel ordered the district court to grant Jansma’s unconditional release.

The case is People v. Jansma.