Court erred in denying outpatient status because it found details of program lacking, but did not determine appellant was currently insane. Appellant was committed to a state hospital in 2000 after having been found not guilty by reason of insanity of attacks on her parents. Although the experts concluded appellant was no longer a danger and would benefit from outpatient treatment, the trial court denied release. The trial court found the defense had not adequately identified a program of supervision and treatment. This was an abuse of discretion; a patient has a right to outpatient treatment once she has met her burden of showing she is either no longer mentally ill or not dangerous. The state may not confine a person who is no longer mentally ill or dangerous because of its failure to provide the court an adequate outpatient treatment program. Reversed.