In the Matter of the Commitment of D.E. v. Columbus Regional Hospital Mental Health Center (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Dec 22 2015, 9:43 am
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 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Michael P. DeArmitt Steven J. Cohen
Columbus, Indiana Zeigler Cohen & Koch
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the December 22, 2015
Commitment of D.E., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Respondent, 03A04-1505-MH-313
Appeal from the Bartholomew
v. Superior Court
The Honorable James D. Worton,
Columbus Regional Hospital Judge
Mental Health Center, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner. 03D01-1504-MH-1755
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] D.E. appeals the trial court’s order that he be committed to Columbus Regional
Hospital Mental Health Center (“Columbus”). D.E. raises a single issue for our
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1505-MH-313 | December 22, 2015 Page 1 of 5
review, namely, whether Columbus presented sufficient evidence to support the
trial court’s order. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 13, 2015, officers with the Brown County Sheriff’s Department
picked up D.E. while he was walking along the side of a road. Because they
were concerned about D.E. and knew that he had a history of mental illness
and “a history of carrying around a machete and trying to get into fights when
he is off his medications,” the officers escorted D.E. to Columbus. Tr. at 7.
There, Dr. Michael Stark treated D.E., and Dr. Stark observed D.E. threaten to
kill one patient and slap another patient.
[3] Columbus petitioned the trial court for the involuntary regular commitment of
D.E. to Columbus. At an ensuing fact-finding hearing, Dr. Stark testified to
D.E.’s history of mental illness, including Dr. Stark’s diagnosis that D.E. suffers
from schizophrenia. And Dr. Stark testified that D.E. had threatened and
attacked other patients at Columbus. Following the hearing, the court found
D.E. to be both dangerous and gravely disabled, and it ordered that he be
involuntarily and regularly committed to Columbus. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] D.E. appeals the commitment order. As our supreme court has explained:
To obtain an involuntary regular commitment of an individual, a
petitioner is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that: (1) the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1505-MH-313 | December 22, 2015 Page 2 of 5
gravely disabled; and (2) detention or commitment of that
individual is appropriate. . . .
***
The purpose of civil commitment proceedings is dual: to protect
the public and to ensure the rights of the person whose liberty is
at stake. The liberty interest at stake in a civil commitment
proceeding goes beyond a loss of one’s physical freedom, and
given the serious stigma and adverse social consequences that
accompany such physical confinement, a proceeding for an
involuntary civil commitment is subject to due process
requirements. To satisfy the requirements of due process, the
facts justifying an involuntary commitment must be shown by
clear and convincing evidence which not only communicates the
relative importance our legal system attaches to a decision
ordering an involuntary commitment, but also has the function of
reducing the chance of inappropriate commitments.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
determination made under the statutory requirement of clear and
convincing evidence, an appellate court will affirm if, considering
only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences
supporting it, without weighing evidence or assessing witness
credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could find the necessary
elements proven by clear and convincing evidence. This
appellate standard of review applies in civil commitment
decisions.
T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (In re T.K.), 27 N.E.3d 271, 273-74 (Ind. 2015)
(footnote, internal alterations and omissions, quotation marks, and citations
omitted). Because we hold that Columbus presented sufficient evidence to
show that D.E. was dangerous, we need not consider the trial court’s alternative
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1505-MH-313 | December 22, 2015 Page 3 of 5
conclusion that D.E. was gravely disabled. See G.Q. v. Branam, 917 N.E.2d 703,
707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). D.E. does not challenge any other requirements for
his commitment on appeal.
[5] D.E. asserts that Columbus did not present sufficient evidence to show that he
is dangerous. “‘Dangerous’ is ‘a condition in which an individual[,] as a result
of mental illness, presents a substantial risk that the individual will harm the
individual or others.’” Id. at 274 (quoting Ind. Code § 12-7-2-53 (2012)). Here,
Dr. Stark testified that D.E. “has a history of carrying around a machete and
trying to get into fights when he is off his medications” and that, when D.E.
was admitted to Columbus, “he was . . . agitated [and] endorsing auditory
hallucinations of hearing God’s voice or multiple God[s] talking to him.” Tr. at
7-8. Dr. Stark further testified as follows:
. . . I do believe he is a potential danger to others when off his
medications as well. [S]ome of those behaviors were displayed
early in his hospital stay . . . . [S]ome of the behaviors he
engaged in . . . were threatening other patients. He threatened to
kill another male patient here[. H]e exhibited inappropriate
laughter[,] which often is a sign . . . that he is responding to
internal stimulatory auditory hallucinations . . . .
Id. at 9. When asked to elaborate on the “issue with another patient,” Dr. Stark
testified: “[D.E.] threatened to kill one of the male patients. At one point he
slapped another male patient on the back and had a rather unprovoked uh, and
had to be removed from that patient.” Id. at 13.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1505-MH-313 | December 22, 2015 Page 4 of 5
[6] D.E. emphasizes on appeal that Dr. Stark testified that D.E. was only a
“potential danger.” Id. at 9. But Dr. Stark testified to specific instances in
which D.E. acted in a manner that presented a substantial risk to others, and
the trial court need not wait until D.E. actually harms another to order his
commitment. See M.Z. v. Clarian Health Partners, 829 N.E.2d 634, 638 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005), trans. denied. D.E. also emphasizes his own testimony or otherwise
attacks Dr. Stark’s credibility, but these arguments are merely requests for this
court to reweigh the evidence on appeal, which we will not do. See In re T.K.,
27 N.E.3d at 273-74.
[7] We hold that Columbus presented sufficient evidence to show that D.E. was
dangerous to others. See I.C. § 12-7-2-53. As such, we cannot say that the trial
court erred when it committed D.E. to Columbus, and we affirm the court’s
judgment.
[8] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A04-1505-MH-313 | December 22, 2015 Page 5 of 5