MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Mark Olivero

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

J.E.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

June 30, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1409-CR-339

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court 

Cause No. 02D04-1306-FC-211

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

Bailey, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] J.E. appeals the trial court’s order of involuntary commitment to a state 

psychiatric hospital after a jury found him not responsible by reason of insanity 

on six criminal charges. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 1 of 15
Issues

[2] J.E. presents one issue for our review, which we restate as the following two:

I. Whether the trial court erred by ordering a regular commitment 

under Indiana Code chapter 12-26-7 when there was evidence 

that J.E. had previously been committed; and

II. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support J.E.’s 

commitment to Logansport State Hospital, where a report 

required by Indiana Code section 12-26-7-3(b) was not included 

in the trial court record.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On June 16, 2013, in Allen County, J.E. stole a car from a residential 

subdivision. In the process of fleeing, J.E. caused two car accidents, one with 

injury, at which he did not stop. Based on these events, on June 27, 2013, the 

State charged J.E. with the following: Battery, as a Class C felony;

1 Attempted 

Residential Entry, as a Class D felony2 (“Count 2”); Auto Theft, as a Class D 

felony;

3 Receiving Stolen Auto Parts, as a Class D felony;4 Criminal 

Recklessness, as a Class D felony;

5 Failure to Stop after an Accident Resulting 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(3) (2012). Due to substantial revisions to the Indiana Code effective July 1, 2014, 

this offense is now a Level 5 felony. Throughout this opinion, we refer to the versions of the statutes in effect 

at the time of J.E.’s offense.

2 I.C. §§ 35-43-2-1.5 & 35-41-5-1.

3 I.C. § 35-43-4-2.5(b)(1).

4 I.C. § 35-43-4-2.5(c).

5 I.C. §§ 35-42-2-2(b)(1) & (c)(2)(A). 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 2 of 15

 
in Injury or Death, as a Class A misdemeanor;

6 and Failure to Stop after an 

Accident Resulting in Damage to a Vehicle, as a Class C misdemeanor.7

 On 

September 6, 2013, the court dismissed Count 2 on the State’s motion. 

[4] On September 4, 2013, J.E. filed his notice of intent to assert the defense of 

insanity. The court appointed Dr. Kevin Wieland (“Dr. Wieland”), a 

psychologist, and Dr. Rebecca J. Mueller (“Dr. Mueller”), a psychiatrist, to 

conduct mental evaluations of J.E. for purposes of the insanity defense. 

[5] On July 22, 2014, J.E.’s jury trial commenced. After the State’s presentation of 

evidence, Drs. Wieland and Mueller testified regarding their evaluations. Dr. 

Wieland found that J.E.’s test results were consistent with a diagnosis of 

paranoid schizophrenia. Based on her interview, Dr. Mueller also settled on a 

likely diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type. Both doctors opined that as a 

result of mental disease or defect, J.E. was, at the time of his offenses, unable to 

appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and insane within the meaning of 

Indiana Code section 35-41-3-6. The State also elicited testimony from Dr. 

Wieland that, in his opinion, long-term commitment would be in J.E.’s best 

interest in part because “it is likely that [J.E.] will stop medication on his own 

and his erratic behavior would again return.” (Tr. 277.) Dr. Mueller 

concurred, noting that if J.E. “is un-medicated he may not only pose a risk to 

6 I.C. §§ 9-26-1-1 & 9-26-1-8(a).

7 I.C. §§ 9-26-1-2 & 9-26-1-9. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 3 of 15

 
himself but to other people.” (Tr. 306.) Her written report expressed that J.E.

“would benefit from re-admission to a state facility for more intensive 

treatment.” (Tr. 229.)

[6] On July 23, 2014, the jury returned a verdict of not responsible by reason of 

insanity on all counts. Immediately following the verdict, the prosecution filed

in open court a petition for involuntary commitment. The court set a hearing 

on the petition for August 29, 2014. The court then ordered an updated

psychiatric evaluation of J.E., which Dr. Mueller completed on August 6, 2014. 

On August 29, 2014, the court held a hearing on the prosecuting attorney’s 

petition. As permitted by Indiana Code section 35-36-2-4(b), the court took 

judicial notice of the evidence presented during J.E.’s trial. The court also 

reviewed Dr. Mueller’s updated evaluation. 

[7] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the prosecuting attorney

showed by clear and convincing evidence that J.E. was mentally ill and

dangerous and, as a result of his mental illness, presented a substantial risk that 

he would harm himself or others. The court further found that J.E. was in need 

of custody, care, or treatment in a facility for a period expected to be more than 

ninety days. The court therefore ordered J.E. committed to a state institution, 

specifically Logansport State Hospital (“LSH”). By a letter dated September 4, 

2014, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (“FSSA”) 

designated LSH – Isaac Ray Unit as the appropriate facility for J.E.’s

admission. (App. 188.) The court also ordered the clerk to open a mental 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 4 of 15
health cause number for his involuntary commitment. J.E. now appeals the 

trial court’s order of involuntary commitment.

8 

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[8] Following a verdict of not responsible by reason of insanity, the prosecuting 

attorney must file a written petition for civil commitment of the defendant 

under either Indiana Code section 12-26-6-2(a)(3) (temporary commitment) or 

chapter 12-26-7 (regular commitment). See I.C. § 35-36-2-4. Here, the 

prosecuting attorney filed the petition under the regular commitment statute, 

which governs proceedings for an individual who is (1) alleged to be mentally ill 

and either dangerous or gravely disabled; and (2) whose commitment is 

reasonably expected to require custody, care, or treatment in a facility for more 

than ninety days. I.C. § 12-26-7-1. 

[9] A petitioner who seeks the civil commitment of an individual is required to 

prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the individual is mentally ill 

and either dangerous or gravely disabled, and (2) detention or commitment of 

that individual is appropriate. I.C. § 12-26-2-5(e). When reviewing a decision 

made under the statutory requirement of clear and convincing evidence, we will 

8 Although J.E. appeals only the trial court’s order of involuntary commitment, the appeal was filed under 

the trial court cause number in J.E.’s criminal case. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 5 of 15

 
affirm if, considering only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences 

supporting it, without weighing or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable 

trier of fact could find the necessary elements proven by clear and convincing 

evidence. In re Civil Commitment of T.K., 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015)

(citation and quotation marks omitted). 

[10] In this case, we are also called upon to interpret certain provisions of the regular 

commitment statute. As this Court has set forth: 

A question of statutory interpretation is a matter of law. In such 

interpretation, the express language of the statute and the rules of 

statutory interpretation apply. We will examine the statute as a whole, 

and avoid excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning or the selective 

reading of words. Where the language of the statute is clear and 

unambiguous, there is nothing to construe. However, where the 

language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the 

statute must be construed to give effect to the legislature’s intent. The 

legislature is presumed to have intended the language used in the 

statute to be applied logically and not to bring about an absurd or 

unjust result. Thus, we must keep in mind the objective and purpose 

of the law as well as the effect and repercussions of such a 

construction.

Nash v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1060, 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted), 

trans denied. 

Section 12-26-7-2

[11] Here, the prosecuting attorney initiated regular commitment proceedings by 

filing a written petition in accordance with Indiana Code section 12-26-7-

2(b)(8). Indiana Code section 12-26-7-2 provides: 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 6 of 15
(a) This section does not apply to the commitment of an individual if 

the individual has previously been committed under IC 12-26-6.

(b) A proceeding for the commitment of an individual who appears to 

be suffering from a chronic mental illness may be begun by filing 

with a court having jurisdiction a written petition by any of the 

following:

[. . . .]

(8) A prosecuting attorney in accordance with IC 35-36-2-4 [after a 

verdict of not responsible by reason of insanity].

I.C. § 12-26-7-2. 

[12] J.E. argues that the express language of Indiana Code section 12-26-7-2(a) 

prohibits the regular commitment under Section 12-26-7-2(b) of an individual 

who has previously been the subject of a temporary commitment under Chapter 

12-26-6. Because J.E. was previously committed to LSH and Richmond State 

Hospital, he contends that he cannot now be committed under Section 12-26-7-

2(b).

9

 

[13] In In re Commitment of R.L., 666 N.E.2d 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), R.L. was 

temporarily committed under Indiana Code section 12-26-6 following a brief 

emergency detention. Id. at 929-30. After less than ninety days of treatment in 

LSH, the hospital petitioned for an order of regular commitment, which the 

trial court eventually ordered. Id. at 930. On appeal, R.L. argued that the 

language of Section 12-26-7-2(a) expressly prohibited the regular commitment 

9 As evidence of his prior commitments, J.E. points to trial testimony of Dr. Mueller, Dr. Wieland, and his 

father that he had been previously committed to LSH and Richmond State Hospital. It is not clear from the 

record whether these previous commitments were temporary under Indiana Code chapter 12-26-6 or regular 

under Chapter 12-26-7.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 7 of 15

 
of an individual when that person was previously subject to temporary 

commitment under Chapter 12-26-6. Id.

[14] In reviewing the statutory scheme as a whole, this Court found that Section 12-

26-7-4 was helpful in interpreting the meaning of Subsection 12-26-7-2(a). Id. at 

932. Section 12-26-7-4 provides that:

(a) Upon receiving:

(1) a petition under section 2 [I.C. § 12-26-7-2] of this chapter; or

(2) a report under IC 12-26-6-11 that recommends treatment in a 

facility for more than ninety (90) days;

the court shall enter an order setting a hearing date.

 

The Court interpreted Section 12-26-7-4 as authorizing two separate paths to

regular commitment: (1) a formal petition filed under Section 12-26-7-2, or (2) a 

report under Section 12-26-6-11. R.L., 666 N.E.2d at 932. The Court then

explained the impact of Section 12-26-7-4 on Subsection 12-26-7-2(a): 

Recognizing that there are two independent avenues under I.C. § 12-

26-7-4 from which the trial court can enter a regular commitment, the

provision in I.C. § 12-26-7-2 that “this section” does not apply to those 

previously subject to a temporary commitment is logical. Ind. Code § 

12-26-7-2 does not apply to an individual who previously had been 

temporarily committed because that individual would not be 

committed pursuant to a petition for regular commitment. Instead, that 

individual would be processed pursuant to the report filed during the 

individual’s temporary commitment and on the recommendation of 

the facility superintendent or attending physician under I.C. § 12–26–

6–11. 

Id. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 8 of 15
[15] We agree with this Court’s interpretation of Section 12-26-7-2 in In re R.L. 

When the statute is read as a whole, the mandate in Subsection (a) that “this 

section” does not apply to the commitment of an individual previously subject 

to a temporary commitment refers to commitment proceedings that will be 

initiated via a report, rather than a petition, because of a previous temporary 

commitment under Chapter 12-26-6. This interpretation harmonizes the 

temporary and regular commitment statutes and allows for a regular 

commitment to follow a temporary commitment, a situation that likely often 

occurs in the mental health field and for which the legislature logically would 

have provided. 

[16] Even if J.E. was, in the past, temporarily committed under Chapter 12-26-6, 

Subsection 12-26-7-2(a) does not bar the prosecuting attorney from filing a 

petition under Chapter 12-26-7-2(b) following a verdict of not responsible by 

reason of insanity. The trial court did not err in ordering J.E. committed under 

Chapter 12-26-7 based on the prosecuting attorney’s petition.

Sufficient Evidence

[17] J.E. next argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s order 

of commitment to the Logansport State Hospital.

[18] Following a hearing on a petition for regular commitment and review of the 

record, if the trial court finds the individual to be mentally ill and either 

dangerous or gravely disabled, the court may enter either of the following 

orders: (1) for the individual’s custody, care, or treatment, or continued 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 9 of 15
custody, care, or treatment in an appropriate facility, or (2) for the individual to 

enter an outpatient therapy program. I.C. § 12-26-7-5(a). J.E. does not 

challenge the court’s finding that he is mentally ill and dangerous. Nor does he 

argue that outpatient therapy would be a more appropriate alternative for 

treatment than custody in a facility. 

[19] Rather, J.E. argues that there is insufficient evidence that LSH was an 

appropriate facility for his placement because the record does not contain a 

report from a community mental health center (“CMHC”) as required by 

Indiana Code section 12-26-7-3(b). Section 12-26-7-3(b) provides:

(b) Except as provided in subsection (d) [commitment to a research 

bed at Larue D. Carter Memorial Hospital], if the commitment is 

to a state institution administered by the division of mental health 

and addiction, the record of the proceedings must include a report 

from a [CMHC] stating both of the following:

(1) The [CMHC] has evaluated the individual.

(2) Commitment to a state institution administered by the division 

of mental health and addiction under this chapter is 

appropriate.

[20] I.C. § 12-26-7-3(b).10 As used in Indiana Code title 12, a CMHC is a program 

of services that meets the following conditions:

10 As a threshold matter, J.E. contends that there was no evidence presented that LSH is a state institution 

administered by the division of mental health and addiction (“DMHA”) such that the reporting requirements 

of subsection (b) would apply to his case. By statute, DMHA “is responsible for administering . . . State 

institutions listed in IC 12-24-1-3.” I.C. § 12-21-5-1(6). Section 12-24-1-3 includes LSH in its enumerated list 

of state institutions under the control and responsibility of the director of DMHA. See I.C. § 12-24-1-3(a)(4). 

Although no specific evidence was presented at J.E.’s commitment hearing about the administration of LSH, 

we think the presentation of such evidence was unnecessary because, by statute, LSH is a state institution 

administered by DMHA. The requirements of Section 12-26-7-3(b) thus apply to this case.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 10 of 15

 
(1) Is approved by the division of mental health and addiction.

(2) Is organized for the purpose of providing multiple services for 

persons with mental illness or a chronic addictive disorder.

(3) Is operated by one (1) of the following or any combination of the 

following:

(A) A city, a town, a county, or another political subdivision of 

Indiana.

(B) An agency of the state.

(C) An agency of the United States.

(D) A political subdivision of another state.

(E) A hospital owned or operated by a unit of government 

described in clauses (A) through (D).

(F) A building authority organized for the purpose of constructing 

facilities to be leased to units of government.

(G) A corporation incorporated under IC 23-7-1.1 (before its repeal 

August 1, 1991) or IC 23-17.

(H) A nonprofit corporation incorporated in another state.

(I) A university or college.

I.C. § 12-7-2-38.

[21] J.E. contends, and the State concedes, that there is no report in the record from 

a CMHC stating that (1) J.E. was evaluated and (2) commitment to LSH was 

appropriate. He therefore argues that there was insufficient evidence to support 

the court’s order of commitment to LSH.

[22] Under the statutory scheme set forth in Chapter 12-26-7, a petition for 

involuntary commitment must include a physician’s written statement that (1) 

the physician examined the individual within the past thirty days, and (2) the 

physician believes that the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 11 of 15
gravely disabled, and in need of custody, care, or treatment in a facility for a 

period expected to be more than ninety days. I.C. § 12-26-7-3(a). After the trial 

court finds that a person is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely 

disabled, the court may enter an order for placement in either an appropriate 

facility or an outpatient therapy program. I.C. § 12-26-7-5(a). Sections 12-26-7-

3(b)-(e) require certain reports to support the court’s placement depending on 

the facility to which the individual is committed. 

[23] Based on the statutory scheme, we think the reporting requirement in Section 

12-26-7-3(b) is a requirement designed to ensure that, after a determination that 

a person is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled, a trial court

places the individual into a facility appropriately suited to address his or her 

mental health needs. In other words, “the purpose of the report requirement of 

Section 12-26-7-3(b) is to insure that . . . qualified persons have evaluated the 

individual and determined that commitment to a state institution is 

appropriate.” A.J. v. Logansport State Hospital, 956 N.E.2d 96, 108 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2011).

[24] We first observe that J.E. did not raise an objection at his hearing that 

placement at a state psychiatric hospital, specifically LSH, was inappropriate. 

Nor did J.E. object to the absence of the required CMHC report. More 

importantly, on appeal J.E. has failed to show how the absence of the report 

has prejudiced his substantial rights. See Ind. Trial Rule 61 (“The court at every 

stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding 

which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”). 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 12 of 15
[25] Despite the report’s absence, there was ample evidence in the record showing 

that qualified persons evaluated J.E. and that a state psychiatric hospital is an 

appropriate facility for J.E.’s treatment. The evidence shows that J.E. has a 

“long standing history of mental illness,” including a diagnosis of paranoid 

schizophrenia. (App. 224.) Results of tests administered by Dr. Wieland

showed that J.E. has “some degree of adequate functioning while under the 

benefit of regular psychiatric medication” but that he had “significant difficulty 

managing his medications in the past.” (App. 224.) Further, because “it is 

likely that [J.E.] will stop medication on his own and his erratic behavior would 

again return,” Dr. Wieland opined that long-term commitment would be in 

J.E.’s best interest. (Tr. 277.) Dr. Mueller concurred, noting that if J.E. “is unmedicated he may not only pose a risk to himself but to other people.” (Tr. 

306.) Dr. Mueller’s written report expressed that J.E. “would benefit from readmission to a state facility for more intensive treatment.” (Tr. 229.) In her 

updated psychiatric assessment, Dr. Mueller found that J.E. “continues with a 

mental state characteristic of a psychotic thought disorder” and that it “is in his 

best interest to be committed involuntary [sic] to a treatment facility for a period 

expected to be more than 90 days.” (App. 233-34.) J.E. had previously been 

committed to both LSH and Richmond State Hospital. 

[26] In addition, the record contains a letter from FSSA, which oversees DMHA,

dated September 4, 2014, stating:

We are in receipt of the Order dated August 29, 2014 civilly 

committing [J.E.] following a finding of Not Guilty by Reason of 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 13 of 15
Insanity. We are hereby designating Logansport State Hospital – Isaac 

Ray Unit as the appropriate facility to be admitted.

(App. 188.) As the State observes “[g]iven the requirement that the record 

include a report from a division-approved [CMHC], it is unlikely that [FSSA] 

would inform the trial court of [LSH’s] designation as the appropriate facility 

for commitment . . . without the existence of a report.” (Appellee’s Br. 14.) 

Although the FSSA letter itself does not meet the requirements of Section 12-

26-7-3(b), the letter indicates that J.E. was evaluated by qualified persons such 

that FSSA was able to designate LSH as the appropriate facility for his care and 

treatment.

[27] This is not to say that the statutory reporting requirement should be readily 

disregarded or waived in cases of civil commitment. “Civil commitment is a 

significant deprivation of liberty that requires the petitioner to show ‘that the 

individual suffers from something more serious than is demonstrated by 

idiosyncratic behavior.’” In re Commitment of Bradbury, 845 N.E.2d 1063, 1065 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427 (1979)). 

For this reason, the commitment statutes provide a person who is the subject of 

an involuntary commitment proceeding a plethora of rights, including the right 

to a hearing and notice thereof. See I.C. §§ 12-26-7-4(c)-(d); 12-26-6. 

[28] Although the record in this case does not contain the report required by Indiana 

Code section 12-26-7-3(b), we are satisfied from the record before us that 

qualified persons evaluated J.E. and determined that commitment to a state 

institution was appropriate. Accordingly, we hold that there was sufficient 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 14 of 15
evidence to support the trial court’s order committing J.E. to a state psychiatric 

hospital for treatment. 

Conclusion

[29] The trial court did not err in ordering regular commitment under Indiana Code 

section 12-26-7-2 where J.E. had a prior history of commitment. Sufficient 

evidence supported the trial court’s order committing J.E. to Logansport State 

Hospital.

[30] Affirmed. 

Riley, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1409-CR-339 | June 30, 2015 Page 15 of 15