Document: 441 U.S. 418 99 S.Ct. 1804 60 L.Ed.2d 323 Frank O'Neal ADDINGTON, Appellant,v.State of TEXAS. No. 77-5992. Argued Nov. 28, 1978. Decided April 30, 1979. Syllabus Appellant's mother filed a petition for his indefinite commitment to state mental hospital in accordance with Texas law governing involuntary commitments. Appellant had long history confinements and emotional disorders. The trial court instructed the jury determine whether, based on "clear, unequivocal convincing evidence," appellant was mentally ill required hospitalization own welfare protection or others. contended that should have employed "beyond reasonable doubt" standard proof. found he hospitalization, ordered an period. Court Appeals reversed, agreeing proof issue. Supreme reversed Appeals' decision reinstated court's judgment, concluding "preponderance evidence" civil proceeding satisfied due process since improper instructions instant case benefited appellant, error harmless. Held : A "clear convincing" is by Fourteenth Amendment brought under commit individual involuntarily period hospital. Pp. 425-433. (a) individual's liberty interest outcome such weight gravity, compared state's interests providing care its citizens who are unable, because disorders, themselves protecting community from dangerous tendencies some ill, requires justify confinement more substantial than mere preponderance evidence. 425-427. (b) Due does not require states use applicable criminal prosecutions delinquency proceedings. In re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368, distinguished. reasonable-doubt inappropriate proceedings because, given uncertainties psychiatric diagnosis, it may impose burden cannot meet thereby erect unreasonable barrier needed medical treatment. be employ completely undercut efforts further legitimate both patient served 427-431. (c) To demands proceedings, has inform factfinder must greater preponderance-of-the-evidence other categories cases. However, term "unequivocal" conjunction (as included this case) constitutionally required, although free standard. 431-433. Appeal dismissed certiorari granted; 557 S.W.2d 511, vacated remanded. Martha L. Boston, Austin, Tex., appellant. James F. Hury, Jr., Galveston, appellee. Joel I. Klein, Washington, D. C., American Psychiatric Ass'n, as amicus curiae, special leave Court. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion 1 question what Constitution 2 * On seven occasions between 1969 1975, committed temporarily, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Arts. 5547-31 5547-39 (Vernon 1958 Supp. 1978-1979), various hospitals periods, 5547-40 5547-57, Austin State Hospital three different occasions. December 18, when arrested misdemeanor charge "assault threat" against mother, county health authorities therefore were well aware difficulties. 3 law. examiner interviewed while custody after interview issued Certificate Medical Examination Mental Illness. certificate, stated "mentally require[d] hospital." Art. 5547-42 1958). 4 retained counsel held before accord statute: 5 "(1) whether proposed if so 6 "(2) others, 7 "(3) incompetent." 5547-51 8 these issues extended over six days. 9 offered evidence suffered serious delusions, often threatened injure parents been involved several assaultive episodes hospitalized caused property damage at apartment parents' home. From undisputed facts, two psychiatrists, qualified experts, expressed opinions psychotic schizophrenia paranoid tendencies. They also probably himself explained closed area treat condition past refused attend outpatient treatment programs escaped times hospitals. 10 did contest factual assertions made State's witnesses; indeed, conceded illness. What attempted show there no basis 11 judge submitted form questions: 12 "1. Based clear, evidence, Addington ill? 13 "2. others?" 14 objected grounds, including refusal 15 others' welfare. then entered order committing 16 appealed Civil Appeals, arguing, among things, standards violated substantive rights any less convictions, i. e., beyond doubt, procedural rights. agreed standard-of-proof issue judgment court. Because consider raised appeal. 17 appeal, decision. 511. holding, relied primarily upon previous v. Turner, 556 563 (1977), cert. denied, 435 929, 98 1499, 55 525 (1978). 18 process. declined adopt questioned could prove exacting particular person would future. It distinguished conviction noting right treatment, periodic review condition, immediate release longer deemed danger Finally, Turner rejected rules procedure juries only beyond-a-reasonable-doubt 19 Reaffirming concluded instruction jury, conformity legal requirements, hence Accordingly, 20 We noted probable jurisdiction. 967, 1604, 56 58. After oral argument became clear challenge constitutionality statute presented. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2) appeal authorized; accordingly, construing papers writ certiorari, we now grant petition.1 II 21 function proof, concept embodied Process Clause realm factfinding, "instruct concerning degree confidence our society thinks correctness conclusions type adjudication." 370, 1076, 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). serves allocate risk litigants indicate relative importance attached ultimate 22 Generally speaking, evolution produced across continuum levels types At one end spectrum typical involving monetary dispute private parties. Since minimal concern suits, plaintiff's thus share roughly equal fashion. 23 case, hand, defendant magnitude historically without explicit constitutional requirement they protected designed exclude nearly possible likelihood erroneous judgment.2 administration justice, imposes almost entire itself. This accomplished requiring guilt accused doubt. supra. 24 intermediate standard, which usually employs combination words "clear," "cogent," "unequivocal," "convincing," commonly used, but nonetheless "is stranger law." Woodby INS, 385 276, 285, 87 483, 488, 362 (1966). See McCormick, Evidence 320 (1954); J. Wigmore, 2498 (3d ed. 1940). One cases allegations fraud quasi-criminal wrongdoing defendant. stake those loss money jurisdictions accordingly reduce having reputation tarnished erroneously increasing Similarly, used protect particularly important See, e. g., supra, S.Ct., 487 (deportation); Chaunt United States, 364 350, 353, 81 147, 149, 120 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman 118, 125, 159, 63 1333, 1336, 1353, L.Ed. 1796 (1943) (denaturalization). Candor suggests that, degree, analyze lay jurors understand differences tests nuances judge's largely academic exercise; directly relevant empirical studies.3 Indeed, truth how affect decisionmaking unknowable, factfinding shared countless thousands individuals throughout country. can assume difference doubt better understood either them relation Nonetheless, even catchwords do always make great adopting "standard empty semantic exercise." Tippett Maryland, 436 F.2d 1153, 1166 (CA4 1971) (Sobeloff, concurring part dissenting part), sub nom. Murel Baltimore City Criminal Court, 407 355, 92 2091, 32 791 (1972). rights, civil, "[t]he [at minimum] reflects value places liberty." F.2d, 1166. III 26 considering govern proceeding, assess extent being confined indefinitely emotionally disturbed Moreover, mindful minimize decisions. Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 335, 96 893, 903, 47 (1976); Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525-526, 78 1332, 1341-1342, 1460 (1958). A. 27 repeatedly recognized purpose constitutes significant deprivation protection. Jackson Indiana, 406 715, 1845, (1972); Humphrey Cady, 405 504, 1048, 31 394 Gault, 387 1, 1428, 527 (1967); Specht Patterson, 386 605, 1209, 326 (1967). indisputable finding dangerousness self others engender adverse social consequences individual. Whether label phenomena "stigma" choose call something else recognize occur very impact parens patriae powers unable disorders themselves; authority police power ill. Health Code, however, confining pose creates number committed, least unclear extent, any, furthered using 29 expanding problems reflected fact recent years many enacted statutes permits Miss.Code Ann. 41-21-75 (1978 Supp.), where satisfies attribute lack states, rather belief varying tend produce comparable results. As earlier, their symbolic meaning practical effect. 30 time another every exhibits abnormal behavior might perceived symptomatic disorder, within range conduct generally acceptable. Obviously, compelled surely none confinement. decide solely few isolated instances unusual conduct. Loss calls showing suffers demonstrated idiosyncratic behavior. Increasing way impress perhaps chances commitments will ordered. asked equally injury significantly harm state. conclude gravity B urges hold law's proof—"beyond doubt." He argues rationale Winship holding applies force proceeding. 33 background gradual assimilation juvenile into traditional prosecutions, allow "civil labels good intentions" "obviate need safeguards courts." U.S., 365-366, 1073. saw controlling stigma adult adjudication juvenile. basic issue—whether act—was same There meaningful distinctions juvenile's act intent 34 reasons why called opposed prosecutions. exercised punitive sense.4 Unlike sense equated prosecution. Cf. 284-285, 487-488. 35 addition, reserved unique prescribed defined Constitution, regarded critical "moral law," 364, 1072, hesitate apply too broadly casually noncriminal ibid. 36 heavy applied manifests minimized guilty go free. Patterson New York, 432 197, 208, 97 2319, 2326, 53 281 (1977). full idea commitment. true sometimes undesirable conviction, 1400 (Chadbourn rev. 1974). though avoided first instance, layers professional observation patient's family friends provide continuous opportunities corrected. genuinely worse failure convict guilty. suffering debilitating illness neither wholly nor stigma. Chodoff, Case Involuntary Hospitalization Mentally Ill, 133 Am.J.Psychiatry 496, 498 Schwartz, Myers & Astrachan, Labeling Rehabilitation Patient, Arch.Gen.Psychiatry 329, 334 (1974). said, therefore, much "go free" normal committed. 37 initial inquiry central latter straightforward question—did alleged? resolve aspects represent beginning inquiry. therapy turns facts interpreted expert psychiatrists psychologists. Given certainty fallibility ever likely dangerous. O'Connor Donaldson, 422 563, 584, 95 2486, 2498, 45 396 (1975) (concurring opinion); Blocker 110 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 48-49, 288 853, 860-861 (1961) (opinion result). 1165 part); Note, Commitment Ill: Theories Procedures, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1288, 1291 (1966); Proces Development "Criminal" Safeguards Adjudications, 42 Ford.L.Rev. 611, 624 38 subtleties diagnosis render certainties virtually reach most situations. functions addressed specific, knowable facts. contrast, large "impressions" drawn subjective analysis filtered through experience diagnostician. makes difficult physician offer definite about patient. Within discipline, "factfinding" "reasonable certainty." If trained psychiatrist difficulty categorical untrained juror—or indeed rely forced reject patients desperately institutionalized care. Such "freedom" purchased high price. 39 That considerations limit compromise protects guarantee error-free all "[d]ue conceivable step taken, whatever cost, eliminate possibility convicting innocent person." 2326. Nor 40 chosen—either legislatively judicially—to standard5 gives assurance stringent adaptable needs states. essence federalism develop variety solutions common, uniform mold. vary state, procedures allowed minimum. Monahan Wexler, Definite Maybe: Proof Probability Commitment, Law Human Behavior 37, 41-42 (1978); Share, Standard Proceedings, 1977 Detroit College L.Rev. 209, 210. unnecessary strict, C 41 Having falls short meeting turn middle level strikes fair balance concerns note statute, evidence;6 cogent, evidence;7 evidence.8 (1966), dealing deportation, 1796, denaturalization, unequivocal, appropriate taken itself, means admits doubt,9 approximating, exceeding, basically susceptible objective unusually drastic—loss citizenship expulsion States. 43 demands, 44 earlier appellant's hearing jury. adequate. determination precise guarantees matter Court.10 remand inconsistent opinion. Vacated 46 POWELL took consideration case. Kulko California Superior 84, 1690, 132 Hanson Denckla, 235, 1228, 1283 (1958); May Anderson, 345 528, 72 840, 1221 (1953). cases, continue refer parties n. 4, 1696. Compare Morano, Reexamination Reasonable Doubt Rule, B.U.L.Rev. 507 (reasonable represented strict common-law rules), May, Some Rules Evidence, Am.L.Rev. 642 (1875) constituted stricter rule ones). Underwood, Thumb Scales Justice: Burdens Persuasion Cases, 86 Yale L.J. 1299 evaluate effect see, S. E. Jury Project, Juries 1973 Crim.L.Rev. study comparing juries, real mock, them. confines said 566 (1977): "The entitled recurrent presents others." Haw.Rev.Stat. 334-60(b)(4)(I) (Supp. 1978); Idaho Code 66-329(i) Kan.Stat.Ann. 59-2917 Mont.Rev.Codes 38-1305(7) (1977 Supp.); Okla.Stat., Tit. 43A, 54.1(C) Ore.Rev.Stat. 426.130 (1977); Utah 64-7-36(6) (1953); Wis.Stat. 51.20(14)(e) (Supp.1978-1979); Superintendent Worcester Hagberg, 374 Mass. 271, 372 N.E.2d 242 Proctor Butler, 117 N.H. 927, 380 A.2d 673 Hodges, 325 605 (D.C.App.1974); Lausche Commissioner Public Welfare, 302 Minn. 65, 225 N.W.2d 366 (1974), 420 993, 1430, 674 (1975). W., N.J.Super. 216, 130 64 (App.Div.), N.J. 465, 558 (1957); Denton Commonwealth, 383 681 (Ky.App.1964) (dicta). Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 36-540 (1974); Colo.Rev.Stat. 27-10-111(1) (Supp.1976); Conn.Gen.Stat. 17-178(c) (1979); Del.Code Ann., 16, 5010(2) (Supp.1978); Ga.Code 88-501(u) Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 911/2, 3-808 (Supp.1977); Iowa 229.12 La.Rev.Stat.Ann., 28:55E (West 1979); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., 34, 2334(5)(A)(1) Mich.Stat.Ann. 14.800(465) (1976) [M.C.L.A. 330.1465]; Neb.Rev.Stat. 83-1035 N.M.Stat.Ann. 43-1-11C N.D.Cent.Code 25-03.1-19 Ohio Rev.Code 5122.15(B) Pa.Stat.Ann., 50, 7304(f) (Purdon Supp.1978-1979); S.C.Code 44-17-580 S.D.Comp.Laws 27A-9-18 Vt.Stat.Ann., 7616(b) Md. Dept. Hygiene Reg. 10.21.03G (1973); Beverly, 342 So.2d 481 (Fla.1977). N.C.Gen.Stat. 122-58.7(i) Wash.Rev.Code 71.05.310; ex rel. Hawks Lazaro, 157 W.Va. 417, 202 S.E.2d 109 Ala.Code 22-52-10(a) Tenn.Code 33-604(d) (Supp.1978). Webster's Third International Dictionary 2494 (1961). harmless error. 1087.

Category: 3