Court Opinion

ID: 9908745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 18:06:01.758987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:29.673142
License: Public Domain

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                         Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                               STATE OF MINNESOTA
                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                     A23-1092

               In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Glenn Lee Burton.

                                Filed December 11, 2023
                                        Affirmed
                                       Ede, Judge

                              Ramsey County District Court
                               File No. 62-MH-PR-21-295

Kathleen K. Rauenhorst, Rauenhorst & Associates, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant
Glen Lee Burton)

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Jenna M. Bartelt, Assistant County Attorney, St.
Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Ramsey County)

         Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Ede,

Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

EDE, Judge

         Appellant challenges a district court order indeterminately committing him as a

person who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public, pursuant to Minnesota

Statutes section 253B.18, subdivision 3 (2022). Appellant argues that the record does not

support the district court’s determination that he meets the requisite criteria for such

commitment, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 17 (2022).

We affirm.
                                          FACTS

         The civil commitment proceedings in this case followed criminal charges against

appellant Glenn Lee Burton for second-degree murder and second-degree attempted

murder. 1 Those offenses stemmed from a December 2020 shooting in St. Paul, Minnesota.

According to the complaint, Burton punched his then-girlfriend, grabbed her by her hair,

and ripped off her wig. He also fired a handgun at her and fatally shot her male companion.

Law enforcement arrested Burton. In April 2021, pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Criminal

Procedure 20.01, the district court found Burton incompetent to stand trial, suspended the

criminal action, and ordered that Burton remain in custody pending a pre-petition screening

investigation regarding civil commitment.

Commitment Proceedings Phase I

         Burton completed pre-petition screening shortly after the district court suspended

the criminal proceedings, in mid-April 2021. During the screening interview, Burton

“repeated numerous statements pertaining to his belief that he ha[d] been framed by the

U.S. government.” Burton also reportedly told the interviewer, “I am time. Time is created

off me. When I die time stops. I am him, Jesus[,] and everything you can think of.” The

screener recommended that the district court order Burton committed as a mentally ill and

dangerous person.

         The county attorney filed a petition for commitment with the district court. The

petition included an April 2021 Forensic Evaluation Report completed by Dr. Adam

1
    Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-20-7932.

                                             2
Gierok, a licensed psychologist, as part of the rule 20.01 process. Dr. Gierok’s report

explained that Burton was the subject of a mental health referral in January 2021. At that

time, mental health staff evaluated Burton and observed that “he exhibited tangential

thinking, loose associations, and flight of ideas, as well as persecutory and religious

delusions.” Burton reportedly told staff he was being set up by the government. In February

2021, staff described Burton as “‘highly psychotic’ with persecutory, grandiose, and

religious delusions, as well as auditory hallucinations.”

       Dr. Gierok opined that Burton’s most likely diagnosis was bipolar 1 disorder,

current episode manic, with psychotic features. Dr. Gierok stated that Burton “would likely

represent an elevated risk to others” if released to the community without psychotropic

medications and intensive supervision. The doctor also offered the opinion that “the

available information is likely sufficient to warrant a referral for civil commitment[,]”

noting that Burton was “diagnosed with a substantial psychiatric disorder which has

resulted in grossly disturbed behavior and faulty perceptions, as well as impairment in

mood, judgment, and the capacity to recognize reality.” And Dr. Gierok opined that Burton

“clearly meets criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder.”

       In late April 2021, the district court entered Findings of Fact and an Order for

Commitment. The court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that

Burton was a person who posed a risk of harm due to mental illness, as defined by

Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 13, and that Burton met the statutory

criteria for civil commitment. The district court considered less restrictive alternatives but

concluded that such alternatives were unavailable. The court found that Burton was a

                                              3
danger to himself and others and concluded that Burton was in need of commitment. The

district court ordered Burton’s commitment to “the Commissioner of Human Services for

an initial period not to exceed six (6) months.” Burton entered Anoka Metro Regional

Treatment Center (AMRTC).

       At the end of April 2021, a staff practitioner for AMRTC filed a petition for

authorization to administer neuroleptic medications to Burton. The petitioner alleged that

Burton “ha[d] exhibited behavior demonstrating a clear refusal of treatment of such

frequency and duration as to preclude effective treatment.” The district court appointed

two licensed psychologists—Dr. Amber M. Lindeman and Dr. Peter E. Meyers—to

examine Burton. Following their examinations and the completion of their May 2021

reports, the district court filed Findings of Fact and an Order for Treatment with

Neuroleptic Medication in June 2021.

       In a September 2021 Evaluation Pursuant to a Petition for Civil Commitment as a

Mentally Ill and Dangerous Person, Dr. Lindeman offered the opinion that, “[i]n addition

to the primary diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, Mr. Burton meets criteria for Antisocial

Personality Disorder.”

       In January 2022, the district court filed a Stipulated Order for Initial Commitment

as Mentally Ill and Dangerous-Phase I. The court found that Burton agreed to waive his

initial trial right and that Burton reserved his right to a trial de novo on all elements of the

mentally ill and dangerous petition, following a 60-day evaluation. The district court

concluded that Burton was “a person who is mentally ill and dangerous to the public”

pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 17, because he is a person

                                               4
“carrying a diagnosis of bipolar disorder with psychotic features” and he presents a clear

danger to the safety of others. Based on the December 2020 criminal charges against

Burton and other evidence, the court determined that Burton presents a clear danger to the

public and a substantial likelihood of engaging in conduct capable of “inflicting serious

physical harm on others.” The district court ordered Burton committed to the custody of

the Commissioner of Human Services in a secure facility as a person who is mentally ill

and dangerous to the public, pending a 60-day evaluation.

       In March 2022, forensic psychologist Taylor F. Olson Norgaard completed a 60-

day evaluation report. Dr. Norgaard opined that Burton’s diagnosis was consistent with his

prior evaluations, including the following: (1) bipolar 1 disorder, current or most recent

episode manic, with psychotic features; (2) antisocial personality disorder; (3) cocaine

substance use disorder; and (4) alcohol use disorder. And the doctor stated that Burton’s

diagnosis “represents a substantial psychiatric disorder of thought, mood, and perception

which grossly impairs his judgment, his behavior, his reality testing, and his reasoning,

which is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed behavior and faulty perceptions . . . .”

Commitment Proceedings Phase II

       After several continuances, the district court held Burton’s Phase II commitment

trial in April 2023. During the trial, the court received 29 exhibits into evidence, without

objection. These exhibits documented the facts stated above. In addition, Drs. Lovett and

Lindeman appeared and testified at the hearing.

       Dr. Lovett testified that, based upon her review of the records, her interview with

Burton, and her education and expertise, Burton’s diagnosis was bipolar 1 disorder, most

                                              5
recent episode manic, with psychotic features. The doctor offered an additional diagnosis

of antisocial personality disorder and noted a history of alcohol and cocaine use disorders.

Dr. Lovett reported that Burton’s symptoms included “flight of ideas, pressured speech,

delusions of grandiosity, and also just a general sense of grandiosity.” The doctor stated

that Burton talked about “feeling invincible, feeling that he is one with God, [and] feeling

that he is time.” Moreover, Dr. Lovett opined that Burton presented symptoms of

depression and mania resulting in irritability, anger, and threatening and aggressive

behavior.

       Dr. Lovett testified that Burton exhibited “criminal thinking errors” such as

“[d]enial of responsibility, a lack of remorse, a lack of empathy, and some other similar

characteristics that unfortunately can contribute to future violence.” When asked if she

believed Burton’s mental health symptoms impaired “his thought, perception, judgment,

behavior, social interaction, his capacity to recognize or remember reality, and the capacity

to recognize his needs for support,” Dr. Lovett stated, “I do think that his symptoms of

mental illness interfere with his ability to understand and do those things, yes.”

       Dr. Lovett explained that Burton had committed several overt acts of causing or

attempting to cause serious physical harm to another. For example, based on her review of

records relating to Burton’s December 2020 criminal case, Dr. Lovett testified that, in

addition to choking and punching his then-girlfriend, Burton had fired his gun at the female

victim before shooting and killing her male companion. Dr. Lovett also discussed reports

that Burton had threatened to hit and kill AMRTC staff, to poke their eyes out, and to bomb

and shoot up the facility. The doctor noted that Burton attempted to pay two other patients

                                              6
to harm staff and burn down the treatment center. And Dr. Lovett explained that Burton

had assaulted staff at AMRTC by elbowing them and placing them in a choke hold. Finally,

the doctor described Burton’s juvenile records, which indicated that he had juvenile

adjudications for aggravated robbery and, in at least one instance, had used a dangerous

weapon to commit an offense. Dr. Lovett offered her opinion that Burton presents a clear

danger to the safety of others and “is at [a] high risk of future violence.” She also opined

that a less restrictive alternative to commitment was not available based on “the very high

risk that Mr. Burton poses, . . . [and] the severity of the violence that he poses, . . . [which]

is highly concerning.”

       Dr. Lindeman testified that Burton suffers from mental illness, i.e., a substantial

psychiatric disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory that grossly

impairs his judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or to reason and understand,

and that Burton’s diagnosis is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed behavior or

faulty perceptions. The doctor stated that she believed Burton discontinued medications

while in jail, which resulted in “more paranoia, . . . [as well as] more grandiosity,

irritability, [and] things of that nature, which . . . can go into . . . mania and psychosis,

which is what the antipsychotic medications . . . help treat.” Dr. Lindeman agreed that, due

to his mental illness, Burton is a clear danger to the safety of others and that he presents a

clear danger to the public based on his overt acts causing or attempting to cause serious

physical harm to others.

       Dr. Lindeman opined that, based on the December 2020 shooting and Burton’s

history of violent conduct, Burton met the criteria for commitment as a person with a

                                               7
mental illness who is a danger to the public. And Dr. Lindeman testified that there was no

“less restrictive alternative available, other than . . . [a mentally ill and dangerous]

commitment at this time[,]” consistent with her September 2021 report that Burton lacked

“insight into his mental illness and [had a] near-complete disregard for medication

compliance[,] both initially when prescribed and then outside of a structured setting[,]” and

that Burton had engaged in violent conduct, such as the alleged December 2020 assault and

shooting incident, as well as threatening mental health staff who had worked with him.

       Burton did not offer any exhibits or call any expert witnesses of his own, but he did

briefly testify. He denied most of the evidence and allegations against him, including his

presence at the December 2020 shooting, his abuse of alcohol and cocaine, and that he had

threatened AMRTC staff. Burton also stated that he was acting in self-defense when he put

a staff member in a chokehold.

       After trial, the district court issued a Final Order for Commitment as Mentally Ill

and Dangerous, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 253B.18, subdivision 3.

       Burton appeals.

                                        DECISION

       Burton summarily challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district

court’s order indeterminately committing him as a person with mental illness who is

dangerous to the public. Without specificity or citation to the record, Burton’s brief asserts

conclusory denials that he has a mental illness, that he committed an overt act causing

harm, and that he poses a risk of harm to others. Although we could decline to reach the

issues Burton raises in the absence of adequate briefing, see State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus.

                                              8
by the Special Comp. Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn.

1997), we are also not persuaded by the substance of Burton’s claims.

       “Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set

aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the

[district] court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” In re Knops, 536 N.W.2d 616, 620

(Minn. 1995). The clear-error standard “is a review of the record to confirm that evidence

exists to support the decision.” In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 222

(Minn. 2021). But “[w]e review de novo whether there is clear and convincing evidence in

the record to support the district court’s conclusion that appellant meets the standards for

commitment.” In re Thulin, 660 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn. App. 2003) (addressing

continued commitment as mentally ill). “[W]hen the truth of the facts asserted is highly

probable, the standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence has been met.” State v.

Ward, 369 N.W.2d 293, 297 (Minn. 1985) (quotation omitted).

       Before committing a person to a secure treatment facility or state-operated treatment

program, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the person is

mentally ill and dangerous to the public. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, subd. 1(a). Minnesota

Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 17, defines an individual person who has a mental

illness and is dangerous to the public as a person who: (1) “has an organic disorder of the

brain or a substantial psychiatric disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or

memory” which grossly impairs that person’s “judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize

reality, or to reason or understand, and is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed

                                             9
behavior or faulty perceptions;” and (2) as a result of the impairment, “presents a clear

danger to the safety of others.”

Mental Illness

       Burton denies that he has a mental illness, challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence underlying the district court’s finding that he met the statutory criteria set forth

in Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 17(1). But there is ample support in the

record for that finding.

       Such evidence includes the following. After his arrest for murder in 2020, Burton

received a mental health referral, and staff described him as “‘highly psychotic’ with

persecutory, grandiose, and religious delusions, as well as auditory hallucinations.” During

pre-petition screening, Burton “repeated numerous statements pertaining to his belief that

he has been framed by the U.S. government” and claimed that he was “time” and “Jesus[.]”

Based on such conduct, Burton was diagnosed with mental illnesses by multiple doctors,

including Drs. Gierok, Lovett, and Lindeman. The doctors opined that Burton suffered

from bipolar 1 disorder with psychotic features and antisocial personality disorder. Dr.

Lovett testified at trial that Burton’s symptoms included “flight of ideas, pressured speech,

delusions of grandiosity, and also just a general sense of grandiosity.” Drs. Gierok,

Norgaard, and Lindeman all offered the opinion that Burton had a substantial psychiatric

disorder that met the statutory definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02,

subdivision 17(1).

                                             10
       Based on this record, there is clear and convincing evidence to support the district

court’s conclusion that Burton meets the statutory criteria for a person who has a mental

illness, as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 17(1).

Clear Danger to the Safety of Others

       Burton also denies that he presents a clear danger to the safety of others, that he

committed or attempted to commit an overt act of harm, and that there is a substantial

likelihood that he will engage in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm. Burton

asserts that the trial evidence was insufficient to contradict his denials. Lacking any

supporting legal citation, Burton’s most specific claim is that “[t]here was no direct

testimony to contradict appellant’s denial of the overt act.” Burton’s arguments are

unavailing.

       As indicated above, “[t]he question of dangerousness is a factual determination for

the trial court, which should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.” In

re Welfare of Hofmaster, 434 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Minn. App. 1989). To prove a person

presents a clear danger to the safety of others, there must be facts demonstrating: (1) that

“the person has engaged in an overt act causing or attempting to cause serious physical

harm to another;” and (2) that “there is a substantial likelihood that the person will engage

in acts capable of inflicting serious physical harm on another.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd.

17(2). “Dangerousness may be demonstrated by past conduct together with a determination

the person is likely to engage in future violent conduct.” In re Lufsky, 388 N.W.2d 763,

766 (Minn. App. 1986). It is not improper for the district court to consider a person’s entire

                                             11
history when determining whether they remain a clear danger to others. See Hofmaster,

434 N.W.2d at 281.

       “Conviction of a crime is not a prerequisite to commitment as mentally ill and

dangerous to the public.” In re Jasmer, 447 N.W.2d 192, 195 (Minn. 1989). If a mentally

ill person fires a loaded gun at another person, that person has engaged in an overt act

causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm to another. See id. The person’s intent

and the outcome of their conduct are irrelevant. Id. And “[i]t is not necessary that mayhem

or murder occur.” In re Kottke, 433 N.W.2d at 884 (stating that “[l]ess violent conduct”

than, for example, repeatedly threatening and assaulting patients and staff at a care facility,

or shooting and killing a person, “can . . . constitute serious physical harm”).

       Here, the record was robust with evidence supporting the district court’s

determination that Burton presented a clear danger to the safety of others.

       First, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district

court’s conclusion that Burton engaged in overt acts causing or attempting to cause serious

physical harm to another. This evidence includes Dr. Lovett’s testimony, based on her

review of records, about the violent details of the 2020 incident leading to Burton’s

criminal charges, reports of Burton’s threatening and assaultive conduct toward AMRTC

staff, and his significant history of dangerous juvenile offenses.

       Second, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the district

court’s conclusion that Burton met the “substantial likelihood” element of Minnesota

Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 17(2)(ii). This includes reports by court-appointed

examiners, Burton’s history of violent and dangerous conduct, and his refusal to take

                                              12
prescribed antipsychotic medications. Dr. Lovett opined that Burton “is at [a] high risk of

future violence.”

       The record evidence thoroughly rebutted Burton’s denial that he met this statutory

criterion.

Less Restrictive Alternative to Commitment

       Lastly, based on its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court was

required to commit Burton to a secure treatment facility unless Burton or another party

established by clear and convincing evidence that a less restrictive state-operated treatment

program or treatment facility was available and was consistent with Burton’s treatment

needs and the requirements of public safety. See Minn. Stat. § 235B.18, subd. 1(a) (2022).

       But Burton failed to carry his burden under Minnesota Statutes section 235B.12,

subdivision 1(a), because he presented no evidence of “less restrictive” means at trial, and

“[a]n appellate court . . . may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence

below.” Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582–83 (Minn. 1988). Nor has Burton advanced

any argument regarding a “less restrictive” treatment program or facility on appeal, and

“[i]n general, issues not raised in the parties’ briefs are waived.” State v. Hurd, 763 N.W.2d

17, 32 (Minn. 2009). In any case, while there is no trial evidence that less restrictive means

existed, the record is replete with evidence proving the converse, including Dr. Lovett’s

and Dr. Lindeman’s testimony that a less restrictive alternative to commitment was not

available. The district court did not err in determining that no less restrictive treatment

options were available.

                                             13
      In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that Burton is a person

who has a mental illness and is dangerous to the public, as defined by Minnesota Statutes

section 253B.02, subdivision 17. The district court did not err in indeterminately

committing Burton pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 253B.18, subdivision 3.

      Affirmed.

                                           14