*Section 566.040 was transferred to 566.031 in 2013.
(1965) Petitioner confined in mental institution must resort to statutory procedure for judicial review of his existing mental condition before seeking federal habeas corpus. Cyronne DeVirgin v. State of Missouri, 341 F.2d 568.
(1974) Held, this section does not violate due process under 14th amendment to U.S. Const. by failing to have a hearing on mental state of defendant at time of commitment. State v. Kee (Mo.), 510 S.W.2d 477.
(1974) Held that court must be satisfied that applicant poses no danger to himself or others and that cure of mental problem had at time of commitment does not necessarily guarantee that another dangerous mental problem does not exist. A psychiatrist opinion alone is not conclusive. State v. Montague (A.), 510 S.W.2d 776.
(1977) Release under this section is solely on patient's mental condition and potential dangerousness. The fact that the patient can be given no further beneficial treatment does not of itself justify release. State v. Davee (A.), 558 S.W.2d 335.
(1991) Although statute permitted person confined to Missouri state hospital to reapply for release every one hundred eighty days, petitioner was not required to reapply for release from state hospital continually and appeal every denial in order to satisfy exhaustion requirements for federal habeas corpus relief. Kolocotronis v. Holcomb, 925 F.2d 278 (8th Cir.).
(1994) It is constitutionally permissible to place burden of proof on insanity acquittee seeking release to prove that he or she is no longer suffering from mental disease or defect rendering him or her dangerous to the safety of self or others. Trial court erred in finding section unconstitutional for placing the burden of persuasion upon the person seeking release. Styles v. State, 877 S.W.2d 113 (Mo.banc).