Case Title: MATTER OF N B

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-147 IN THE SUPREMI3 COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN THE MATTER OF N.B. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: James D. Johnson, Montana Legal Services, argued, Warm Springs, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Sheri Sprigg argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted: November 21, 1980 Decided : *PC - ftE0 2 4 1980 Filed: J ) I ~ [ L : h ~ u Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. N.B. a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y . A f t e r a n o n j u r y h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t Court made a f i n d i n g t h a t N.B. was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. He was i n v o l u n t a r i l y committed t o Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l f o r t h r e e months of e v a l u a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t . T h i s a p p e a l r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court commit e r r o r i n its f i n d i n g s by u s i n g " r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l c e r t a i n t y " a s t h e l e g a l s t a n d a r d of p e r s u a s i o n n e c e s s a r y t o f i n d N.B. s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y i l l ? 2. Does t h e c l a u s e "except t h a t mental d i s o r d e r s s h a l l be evidenced t o a r e a s o n a b l e medical c e r t a i n t y " found i n s e c t i o n 53-21-126(2), MCA, lower t h e l e g a l s t a n d a r d of p e r s u a s i o n r e q u i r e d i n c i v i l commitment proceedings below t h e " c l e a r and convincing" s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d by F o u r t e e n t h Amendment due p r o c e s s ? 3 . Can t h i s Court c o n s i d e r t h e s e i s s u e s where N.B. I s commitment may be moot, and where t h e i s s u e s were n o t r a i s e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court? W e hold t h a t t h e s e i s s u e s a r e p r o p e r l y b e f o r e us. Although w e b e l i e v e t h e s t a t u t o r y l e g a l s t a n d a r d f o r proving s e r i o u s mental i l l n e s s is c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , we r e v e r s e and d i s m i s s t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by u s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d f o r judging t h e competence of a medical w i t n e s s 1 testimony i n p l a c e of t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l s t a n d a r d of p e r s u a s i o n f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether N.B. was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. The meager e v i d e n t i a r y r e c o r d developed i n t h i s c a s e does n o t s u p p o r t a remand of t h i s c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court. N.B. is n o t shown i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us t o be s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill by t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l s t a n d a r d of p e r s u a s i o n of c l e a r and convincing p r o o f . On December 5 , 1979, S c o t t S c h r e i b e r , a counselor- t h e r a p i s t of t h e South C e n t r a l Montana Regional Mental Health C e n t e r , r e q u e s t e d t h e Yellowstone County Attorney t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g N.B. t o be s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill and dangerous. S c h r e i b e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t N.B. be committed t o a s t a t e mental h o s p i t a l . A formal p e t i t i o n f o r N . B . ' s commitment was f i l e d t h a t same day. From i n f o r m a t i o n included i n t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court determined t h a t p r o b a b l e cause e x i s t e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t N.B. was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. The c o u r t ordered t h a t N.B. undergo a p s y c h o l o g i c a l examination a d m i n i s t e r e d by a p r o f e s s i o n a l of t h e South C e n t r a l Montana Regional Mental Health C e n t e r . Apparently t o s a t i s f y t h i s o r d e r , S c h r e i b e r v i s i t e d w i t h N.B. f o r 30 minutes and s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e county a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t N.B. was "unmanageable on an o u t p a t i e n t b a s i s " and " i n need of long-term treatment.'' I n t h i s l e t t e r , S c h r e i b e r recommended t h a t N.B. be committed t o t h e Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l f o r a p e r i o d of t h r e e months. An in-chambers h e a r i n g was h e l d on December 11, 1979, r e g a r d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r commitment. N.B. was p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g and was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . The o n l y w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y i n f a v o r of N . B . ' s commitment was S c h r e i b e r . S c h r e i b e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was q u a l i f i e d t o t e s t i f y a s a " p r o f e s s i o n a l person" i n t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e m e n t a l l y ill. S c h r e i b e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d N.B. was a danger t o himself and t o o t h e r s and t h a t N.B. was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. I n cross-examination, S c h r e i b e r admitted t h a t he d i d n o t have a d e g r e e i n psychology and t h a t h i s commitment recommendation was based i n p a r t on e v e n t s n o t p e r s o n a l l y known by him. S c h r e i b e r f u r t h e r admitted t h a t N.B. 's behavior improved while N.B. was t a k i n g t r a n q u i l i z i n g m e d i c a t i o n . I n h i s own d e f e n s e , N . B . t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s e r r a t i c behavior can be c o n t r o l l e d by medication. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s r e c e n t e r r a t i c behaviour occurred a f t e r he " r a n o u t " of medication. I n t h e absence of t h e p r e s i d i n g judge from chambers, another d i s t r i c t judge s i g n e d a s t a t e m e n t of f i n d i n g s and o r d e r f o r N . B . ' s i n v o l u n t a r y commitment. Finding of f a c t no. 7 made by t h e c o u r t read a s f o l l o w s : "The Respondent ( N . B . ) i s t o a r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l c e r t a i n t y s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill a s d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 53-21-102(14) Montana Code Annotated, 1979." (Emphasis added.) N.B. was t h e n i n v o l u n t a r i l y committed t o t h e Warm S p r i n g s Mental H e a l t h f a c i l i t y f o r t h r e e months. By t h e time t h i s a p p e a l was submitted t o t h i s Court, N.B. had been r e l e a s e d from t h e f a c i l i t y . Two c a r d i n a l r u l e s of t h i s Court p r o v i d e t h a t w e w i l l n o t render an o p i n i o n concerning an i s s u e t h a t is moot and t h a t a p a r t y may n o t r a i s e an i s s u e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal t o t h i s Court. Counsel f o r N.B. f e a r s w e may c l a s s i f y t h e i s s u e s he r a i s e s a s moot because of N . B . ' s r e l e a s e from t h e Warm S p r i n g s f a c i l i t y . Counsel f o r t h e S t a t e , a s respondent i n t h i s a p p e a l , a r g u e s t h a t t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by N.B. should be d i s m i s s e d because N.B. f a i l e d t o r a i s e them d u r i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court h e a r i n g . Although t h e S t a t e acknowledges t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n its f i n d i n g of f a c t no. 7, it contends t h a t N.B. should f i r s t r e t u r n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court and move t h a t c o u r t t o c o r r e c t i t s f i n d i n g s and e n t e r a new o r d e r . The important c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d h e r e a r e n o t rendered moot by N . B . ' s r e l e a s e from t h e Warm S p r i n g s mental h e a l t h f a c i l i t y . During o r a l argument, we were informed by counsel t h a t approximately 100 Montanans each year a r e i n v o l u n t a r i l y committed f o r t h r e e months of t r e a t m e n t and e v a l u a t i o n i n t h e Warm S p r i n g s f a c i l i t y . The t i m e l y appeal of an o r d e r of i n v o l u n t a r i l y commitment by any of t h e s e p e r s o n s be£ o r e r e l e a s e is v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e given our r u l e s of a p p e l l a t e procedure. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l problem p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s appeal t h e n "could be c a p a b l e of r e p e t i t i o n , y e t could evade review." S e e , Roe v. Wade ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147. T h i s Court r e s e r v e s t o i t s e l f t h e power t o examine c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s t h a t i n v o l v e broad p u b l i c concerns t o avoid f u t u r e l i t i g a t i o n on a p o i n t of law. W e r e j e c t t h e S t a t e ' s argument t h a t t h i s appeal should be d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o r a i s e t h e s e i s s u e s f o r t h e f i r s t time on appeal i f t h e a l l e g e d D i s t r i c t Court e r r o r af f e c t s t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of a l i t i g a n t . S e e , Halldorson v. Halldorson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont. 170, 573 P.2d 169. The s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t claimed t o have been harmed is N.B. I s r i g h t t o n o t be committed t o a s t a t e mental h o s p i t a l w i t h o u t c l e a r and convincing proof t h a t he is s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. Addington v. Texas ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323. I n Addinqton, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court held t h a t due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s a s t a n d a r d of c l e a r and convincing proof of dangerous mental i l l n e s s i n i n v o l u n t a r y commitment proceedings. The Court concluded t h a t proof by mere preponderance of t h e evidence f a l l s s h o r t of meeting t h e demands of due p r o c e s s , w h i l e t h e s t r i n g e n t s t a n d a r d of proof beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt could n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y be r e q u i r e d g i v e n t h e s u b t l e t i e s and nuances of mental i l l n e s s d i a g n o s i s . The Court s e l e c t e d t h e " c l e a r and convincing" s t a n d a r d a s t h e l e g a l burden of .persuasion in these proceedings after balancing the individual's interests in not being involuntarily confined with the State's interests in commiting the mentally disturbed for treatment. The "clear and convincing" standard was chosen because the loss of liberty resulting from involuntary commitment calls for a convincing showing that the individual suffers from dangerous mental illness. Section 53-21-126(2), MCA, provides Montana's standard of persuasion required in involuntary commitment proceedings : "The standard of proof in any hearing held pursuant to this section is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to any physical facts or evidence and clear and convincing evidence as to all other matters, except that mental disorders shall be evidenced to a r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l c e r t a i n t y . . . " (Emphasis added.) Counsel for N.B. asserts that section 53-21-126 (2), MCA, creates a "trifurcated" legal standa.rd of persuasion: part proof beyond a reasonable doubt, part clear and convincing proof and part proof with reasonable medical certainty. This final part of the statutory standard, he contends, creates an unconstitutionally low standard of persuasion under the rule in Addington. He argues that proof by reasonable medical certainty is less than clear and convincing proof. We disagree with counsel's interpretation of the statute. We find that Montana's bifurcated standard of persuasion for involuntary commitment is sufficient to pass constitutional scrutiny under Addington. - Our statute requires part proof beyond a reasonable doubt and part clear and convincing proof. We interpret the statute's use of "reasonable medical certainty" only as a standard for the medical witness testifying in commitment proceedings. A better statement is that proof of mental disorders to a r e a s o n a b l e medical c e r t a i n t y is s u f f i c i e n t i f , c o n s i d e r e d w i t h a l l t h e o t h e r evidence i n t h e c a s e , t h e t r i e r of f a c t is l e d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e mental d i s o r d e r e x i s t s by c l e a r and convincing p r o o f . Although we f i n d t h i s s t a t u t e t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e l e g a l s t a n d a r d of p e r s u a s i o n it r e q u i r e s was f a r from s a t i s f i e d by t h e evidence produced i n N.B. ' s commitment proceeding. A " p r o f e s s i o n a l person" of unknown e x p e r t i s e was t h e s o l e w i t n e s s produced t o prove t h e mental d i s o r d e r of N.B. The testimony g i v e n by t h i s " p r o f e s s i o n a l person" was s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t w i t h r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l c e r t a i n t y t o prove l e g a l l y t h a t N.B. was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is r e v e r s e d . The c o u r t e r r e d by using r e a s o n a b l e medical c e r t a i n t y a l o n e a s a s u f f i c i e n t s t a n d a r d of proof of s e r i o u s mental i l l n e s s . While we f i n d t h e s t a t u t e t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , we d i s m i s s t h i s c a u s e b e c a u s e l e g a l l y i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o prove t h a t N.B. was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. Reversed and d i s m i s s e d . J u s t i c e W e Concur: J u s t i c e s