Title: MATTER OF GOEDERT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 14560 IN THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A I N THE M A T T E R O F THE M E N T A L HEALTH O F RICHARD W. GOEDERT, Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: McCarvel and Maltese, Glasgow, Montana Terry L. S e i f f e r t argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mary B. Troland argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana James McCann County Attorney, Wolf P o i n t , Montana Submitted: February 5 , 1979 Decided: 1 1979 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Following a combined adjudicatory and d i s p o s i t i o n a l hearing on a p p e l l a n t ' s mental h e a l t h on September 28, 1978, i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, Roosevelt County, t h e Honorable L. C. Gulbrandson found a p p e l l a n t t o be s e r i o u s l y mentally ill a s defined i n s e c t i o n 38-1302(14), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 53-21-102(14) MCA. A o r d e r of confinement w a s entered on October 1 2 , 1978, and a p p e l l a n t appeals. O n September 15, 1978, a p p e l l a n t threatened t o k i l l Ione Hughes when t h e two met i n a bar i n Poplar, Montana. Appellant l e f t t h e b a r a f t e r t h i s i n c i d e n t b u t returned i n a s h o r t t i m e and continued t o t h r e a t e n M r s . Hughes. Appellant was a r r e s t e d and a p e t i t i o n f o r commitment was f i l e d a g a i n s t him. Testimony adduced on September 28, 1978, and i n r e l a t e d depositions revealed t h a t a p p e l l a n t has s p e n t a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of t h e l a s t twenty years i n i n s t i t u t i o n s . Medical testimony from two psychologists i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t s u f f e r s from paranoid schizophrenia. Both psychologists i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t should be placed i n a secured and s t r u c t u r e d environment, a t l e a s t temporarily, u n t i l h i s mental condition s t a b i l i z e s . Various witnesses, including D i s t r i c t Judge M. James S o r t e , t e s t i f i e d a s t o a p p e l l a n t ' s p a s t v i o l e n t behavior and a s t o t h e i r consequent f e a r of him. With r e s p e c t t o t h e i n c i d e n t of September 15, testimony revealed t h a t a p p e l l a n t had i n t h e p a s t accused M r s . Hughes of playing some p a r t i n t h e k i l l i n g of h i s brother Gene i n 1973. A f t e r h i s a r r e s t on t h e 15th, a p p e l l a n t repeated t h e t h r e a t s a g a i n s t M r s . Hughes t o t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r . Appellant himself s t a t e d a t t h e hearing t h a t t h e b e s t way t o "break even" o r g e t r i d of t h e people who bothered him was t o k i l l them. Based upon t h e evidence presented Judge Gulbrandson found a p p e l l a n t t o be s e r i o u s l y mentally ill. H e found t h a t t h e Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital w a s t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e a v a i l a b l e f a c i l i t y f o r providing necessary treatment and issued an a p p r o p r i a t e order of commitment. Appellant p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t was s e r i o u s l y mentally ill w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 38-1302(14), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 53-21-102(14) M C A ? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n committing a p p e l l a n t t o Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital a s opposed t o a less r e s t r i c t i v e f a c i l i t y f o r treatment of h i s s e r i o u s mental i l l n e s s ? Section 38-1302(14), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 53-21- 102(14) MCA, d e f i n e s t h e phrase " s e r i o u s l y mentally i l l " : " ' S e r i o u s l y mentally ill' means s u f f e r i n g from a mental d i s o r d e r which has r e s u l t e d i n s e l f - i n f l i c t e d i n j u r y o r i n j u r y t o o t h e r s o r t h e imminent t h r e a t thereof o r which has deprived t h e person a f f l i c t e d of t h e a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t h i s l i f e o r health. N o person may be involun- t a r i l y committed t o a mental h e a l t h f a c i l i t y o r detained f o r evaluation and treatment because he i s a n e p i l e p t i c , mentally d e f i c i e n t , men- t a l l y r e t a r d e d , s e n i l e , o r s u f f e r i n g from a mental d i s o r d e r u n l e s s t h e condition causes him t o be s e r i o u s l y mentally ill w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h i s chapter." According t o t h i s d e f i n i t i o n and t h e f a c t s of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a p p e l l a n t must s u f f e r from a mental d i s o r d e r which has r e s u l t e d i n t h e imminent t h r e a t of s e l f - i n f l i c t e d i n j u r y o r i n j u r y t o o t h e r s i n order t o b e adjudged "seri- ously mentally i l l " . Section 38-1305(7), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 53-21-126(2) MCA, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t "imminent t h r e a t of s e l f - i n f l i c t e d i n j u r y o r i n j u r y t o o t h e r s s h a l l be evidenced by o v e r t a c t s , s u f f i c i e n t l y r e c e n t i n t i m e a s t o be m a t e r i a l and r e l e v a n t a s t o the respon- d e n t ' s present condition." The p i v o t a l question, then, with r e s p e c t t o a p p e l l a n t ' s f i r s t i s s u e , is whether a p p e l l a n t ' s a c t i o n s amounted t o t h e "overt a c t " required by s t a t u t e . Appellant argues t h a t h i s a c t i o n s over t h e p a s t twenty years have developed i n t o a p a t t e r n ; he raves and threatens b u t he has n o t followed up h i s words with action. Federal c o u r t s have discussed t h i s requirement of an o v e r t a c t i n some d e t a i l . I n Lessard v . Schmidt (E.D. W i s . 1972), 349 F.Supp. 1078, 1093, vacated and remanded on o t h e r grounds, (1974), 4 1 4 U.S. 473, 94 - - S.Ct. 713, 38 L Ed 2d 661, t h e Court s t a t e d : "A1 though attempts t o p r e d i c t f u t u r e conduct are always d i f f i c u l t , and confinement based upon such a prediction must always be viewed with suspicion, w e believe c i v i l confinement can be j u s t i f i e d i n some cases i f t h e proper burden of proof i s s a t i s f i e d and dangerousness i s based upon a finding of a r e c e n t o v e r t a c t , attempt o r t h r e a t t o do s u b s t a n t i a l harm t o oneself o r another." (Emphasis added.) I n another case, Lynch v. Baxley (D. Ala. 1974), 386 F.Supp. 378, 391, t h e c o u r t s t a t e d : "A finding of dangerousness i n d i c a t e s t h e like- lihood t h a t t h e person t o be committed w i l l i n f l i c t serious harm on himself o r on others. I n t h e case of dangerousness t o o t h e r s , t h i s t h r e a t of harm comprehends t h e p o s i t i v e i n f l i c - t i o n of i n j u r y -- o r d i n a r i l y physical i n j u r y , b u t possibly emotional i n j u r y a s well." (Em- phasis added. ) While n o t every t h r e a t can be considered an o v e r t act, t h e testimony and circumstances of t h i s c a s e i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s t h r e a t s f u l f i l l e d t h e s t a t u t o r y requirement of an o v e r t a c t . A t h r e a t t o k i l l i s a verbal a c t t h a t f a l l s within t h e d e f i n i t i o n of an "overt Act" a s set f o r t h i n t h e s t a t u t e . Turning t o a p p e l l a n t ' s second i s s u e , s e c t i o n 38- 1306(1) ( c ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 53-21-127(2) MCA, s t a t e s t h a t , i n determining t h e treatment t o be provided t o a s e r i o u s l y mentally ill person: ". . . t h e c o u r t s h a l l choose t h e l e a s t restric- t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s necessary t o p r o t e c t t h e respondent and t h e public and t o permit effec- t i v e treatment. The c o u r t s h a l l consider and s h a l l describe i n its order what a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r treatment of t h e respondent a r e a v a i l a b l e , what a l t e r n a t i v e s were investigated, and why t h e investigated a l t e r n a t i v e s w e r e not deemed suitable." Along these l i n e s Judge Gulbrandson s t a t e d i n h i s findings of f a c t : "5. That respondent i s a f i t and proper person f o r commitment t o Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital f o r a period of t h r e e (3) months f o r treatment of h i s present acute state of h i s serious mental i l l n e s s . "6. That i f , during t h e commitment t o W a r m Springs S t a t e Hospital, it is determined t h a t extended treatment under detention i s unnecessary and t h a t a less r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e i s warranted t h a t w i l l continue t h e protection of t h e respondent and t h e public then, i n t h a t event, t h e same s h a l l be ordered. "7. That, i n t h e p a s t twenty (20) years, respon- dent has been released from W a r m Springs S t a t e Hospital and t r a n s f e r r e d t o Veterans Hospitals a t Sheridan, Wyoming and a t American Lake, Washington. That t h e Court deems t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e unsuitable f o r t h i s respondent f o r t h e reason t h a t it i s not a s u f f i c i e n t l y secure environment t o p r o t e c t t h e public from t h i s respondent's outrages. "8. That t h e r e i s no mental h e a l t h f a c i l i t y , o t h e r than a s a t e l l i t e o f f i c e s t a f f e d by one professional person i n t h e county of respondent's residence, to-wit: Roosevelt County. "9. That t h e professional persons who gave testi- mony i n t h i s matter i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s respondent r e q u i r e s an extended s t r u c t u r e d s e t t i n g . "10. These s a m e professional persons gave testi- mony t h a t t h e r e i s no other a l t e r n a t i v e a v a i l a b l e t o t h i s respondent t h a t w i l l provide some struc- t u r e o r some c o n t r o l over t h i s respondent, i.e.: Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital o r a veterans home. "11. The only appropriate order f o r treatment and extended c a r e of t h i s respondent t h a t would be s u i t a b l e t o h i s chronic s e r i o u s mental i l l n e s s pursuant t o Section 38-1306 (1) ( a ) ( i v ) , Revised Codes of Montana, i s t o confinement a t Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital, u n t i l a s u i t a b l e less r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e i s made a v a i l a b l e t h a t w i l l provide respondent some measure of freedom and a t t h e s a m e t i m e a f f o r d protection of t h e public." These findings a r e based, i n l a r g e measure, upon t h e testimony of two psychologists and one p s y c h i a t r i s t . W e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court adequately considered t h e a v a i l a b l e f a c i l i t i e s and, finding no appropriate less re- s t r i c t i v e f a c i l i t y , properly committed a p p e l l a n t t o t h e W a r m Springs S t a t e Hospital. Af firmed. W e concur: z&&%g&- Chief J u s t i c e J u s t i c e s v