In the Matter of N.L. ( 2017 )

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-12183
IN THE MATTER OF N.L.
Middlesex. December 5, 2016. - March 14, 2017.
Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, &
Budd, JJ.
Mental Health. Practice, Civil, Commitment of mentally ill
person, Continuance, Moot case. Moot Question.
Petitions for civil commitment and to authorize medical
treatment filed in the Cambridge Division of the District Court
Department on November 3, 2014.
A motion for a continuance was heard by Roanne Sragow, J.,
and the petitions were also heard by her.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative
transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
Karen Owen Talley for the respondent.
Diane M. Geraghty Hall for the petitioner.
Anna Krieger, Robert D. Fleischner, Jennifer Honig, &
Phillip Kassel, for Center for Public Representation & another,
amici curiae, submitted a brief.
LOWY, J. N.L. appeals from the order for his civil
commitment to a mental health facility (hospital), pursuant to
2
G. L. c. 123, §§ 7 and 8, and the order authorizing his
treatment with antipsychotic medications pursuant to G. L.
c. 123, § 8B. He argues that the District Court judge
improperly denied his prehearing request for a continuance to
allow time for his counsel to prepare an adequate defense and an
independent medical examiner to complete a psychiatric
evaluation. We transferred the case from the Appeals Court to
this court on our own motion.
We dismiss the appeal as moot but exercise our discretion
to address the issue before us, which is whether a judge may
deny a person's (or the person's counsel's) first request for a
continuance of a hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c) or
8B. We hold that where a person or his or her counsel requests
such a continuance, the grant of the continuance is mandatory
where a denial thereof is reasonably likely to prejudice a
person's ability to prepare a meaningful defense.1
Background. 1. Facts. N.L. was admitted to the hospital
on October 30, 2014, under the emergency hospitalization
provisions of G. L. c. 123, § 12. On November 3, the hospital
filed a petition for commitment pursuant to G. L. c. 123, §§ 7
and 8, and a petition for determination of incompetency and for
authorization for medical treatment for mental illness pursuant
1
We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Center
for Public Representation and the Mental Health Legal Advisors
Committee.
3
to G. L. c. 123, § 8B. Counsel was appointed for N.L. The
hearing on the petitions was scheduled for November 6. Due to
administrative delays, counsel for N.L. did not receive a copy
of N.L.'s medical records until November 5, the same day that an
independent psychiatrist retained by counsel first met with N.L.
On November 6, counsel for N.L. filed a motion to continue the
hearing to allow him time to prepare a meaningful defense and to
allow the independent medical examiner time to complete his
evaluation. The hospital opposed the motion on the grounds that
delay would jeopardize N.L.'s safety. The judge denied the
motion to continue without stating her reasons, and proceeded
with the commitment hearing. The judge then ordered N.L. to be
involuntarily committed to the hospital for a period not to
exceed six months. Immediately following the commitment
hearing, the incompetency and medical treatment hearing
commenced. The judge allowed the hospital's petition to treat
N.L. with antipsychotic medication against his will.
N.L. timely appealed this decision to the Appellate
Division of the District Court Department. In September 2015,
that court dismissed N.L.'s appeal as moot because he had since
been discharged from the hospital, and the court declined to
reach his arguments because it held that the circumstances of
the case were not "capable of repetition."
4
2. Statutory overview. General Laws c. 123, as is
relevant here, provides for procedures to allow the involuntary
civil commitment of persons with mental illness, and for the
involuntary medical treatment of such persons.
a. Civil commitment hearings. Sections 7 and 8 of G. L.
c. 123 address the long-term commitment of persons with mental
illness. Under § 7 (a), the superintendent of any facility2 may
petition the District Court for the commitment of any patient3
already at the facility.4 A hearing on this petition must be
conducted within five days of its filing, "unless a delay is
requested by the person or his counsel." G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c).
Section 8 (a) provides that no person shall be committed unless
the District Court finds after a hearing that "(1) such person
is mentally ill, and (2) the discharge of such person from a
facility would create a likelihood of serious harm."
2
A "facility" is "a public or private facility for the care
and treatment of mentally ill persons." G. L. c. 123, § 1.
3
A "patient" is "any person with whom a licensed mental
health professional has established a mental health
professional-patient relationship." G. L. c. 123, § 1.
4
Often, as was the case here, the individual is at the
facility under the emergency restraint and temporary
hospitalization provisions of G. L. c. 123, § 12, which allow
for the commitment of an individual for a three-day period.
G. L. c. 123, § 12 (a). See Newton-Wellesley Hosp. v. Magrini,
451 Mass. 777, 778-781 (2008), for a discussion of the temporary
commitment provisions of G. L. c. 123, § 12.
5
b. Involuntary medical treatment hearings. Section 8B of
G. L. c. 123 deals with the treatment of committed persons with
antipsychotic medications. If a civil commitment petition is
filed under the provisions of G. L. c. 123, §§ 7 and 8, the
superintendent of the facility may also petition the District
Court under § 8B to allow the treatment of the person with
antipsychotic medications against the person's will. The
involuntary medical treatment petition may not be considered by
the court unless it has already issued a civil commitment order
for the person under §§ 7 and 8. G. L. c. 123, § 8B (b) If an
involuntary medical treatment petition is filed concurrently
with a civil commitment petition -- as was the case here -- a
hearing on both must commence on the same day.5 G. L. c. 123,
§ 8B (c). In such circumstances, this means that a continuance
of a civil commitment hearing results in a continuance of the
involuntary medical treatment hearing.
c. Individuals' rights at hearings. Section 5 of G. L.
c. 123 pertains to a person's rights at civil commitment and
involuntary medical treatment hearings, including the right to
counsel and the right to present independent testimony at the
5
If the involuntary medical treatment petition is not filed
concurrently with the civil commitment petition (i.e., the
petition is filed after the person has been committed for some
period of time), a hearing must occur within fourteen days of
the filing of the petition, "unless a delay is requested by the
person or his counsel." G. L. c. 123, § 8B (c).
6
hearing. G. L. c. 123, § 5. An indigent person must be
appointed counsel (unless he or she refuses the appointment of
counsel), and the court may provide such a person with an
independent medical examination. Id. A person is allowed "not
less than two days after the appearance of his counsel" to
prepare the case, and after this minimum period the hearing
"shall be conducted forthwith . . . unless counsel requests a
delay." Id.
Discussion. 1. Mootness. Before N.L.'s appeal reached
the Appellate Division, he was discharged from the hospital.
Accordingly, the case is moot. "However, '[i]ssues involving
the commitment and treatment of mentally ill persons are
generally considered matters of public importance' and present
'classic examples' of issues that are capable of repetition, yet
evading review." Newton-Wellesley Hosp. v. Magrini, 451 Mass.
777, 782 (2008), quoting Acting Supt. of Bournewood Hosp. v.
Baker, 431 Mass. 101, 103 (2000). Therefore, we exercise our
discretion and decide the issue.
2. Continuances for civil commitment and involuntary
medical treatment hearings. General Laws c. 123, § 7 (c),
provides that civil commitment hearings "shall be commenced
7
within [five] days of the filing of the petition, unless a delay
is requested by the person or his counsel."6
Here, the word "unless" provides an exception to the
general rule that civil commitment hearings must commence within
five days of the filing of the petition. G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c).
See Hashimi v. Kalil, 388 Mass. 607, 609 (1983). When a
"request" for a delay is made by either the person or his
counsel, that general rule no longer applies and the hearing may
commence beyond the mandatory five-day window. G. L. c. 123,
§ 7 (c).
Although the statute is silent as to whether the presiding
judge must grant such a "request," we conclude that the plain
language as well as the legislative intent of the statute
require that the grant of a requested first continuance be
mandatory where a denial thereof is reasonably likely to
prejudice a person's ability to prepare a meaningful defense.
See Sullivan v. Brookline, 435 Mass. 353, 360 (2001) ("statutory
language should be given effect consistent with its plain
meaning and in light of the aim of the Legislature unless to do
6
For clarity, the analysis will focus on the specific
language of G. L. c. 123, § 7. However, G. L. c. 123, § 8B (c),
and G. L. c. 123, § 5, contain language that is nearly identical
to the "unless" clause of G. L. c. 123, § 7. Therefore, when a
person or his or her counsel requests a delay under any of these
provisions, the grant of it is mandatory when a denial thereof
is reasonably likely to prejudice a person's ability to
meaningfully prepare a defense.
8
so would achieve an illogical result"). The Legislature could
have provided discretion to a judge when a party makes a
"request" and did so elsewhere in the same statute. See G. L.
c. 123, § 17 (b) ("If the court in its discretion grants such a
request . . ."). Further, any interpretation not making the
grant of a continuance mandatory (absent a showing that denial
of the continuance is not reasonably likely to prejudice a
person's ability to prepare a meaningful defense) ignores the
word "unless" in the statute. See Sullivan v. Ward, 304 Mass.
614, 615-616 (1939).
This interpretation is consistent with the Legislature's
intent to afford individuals more due process in civil
commitment and medical treatment hearings than had been
available previously. Newton-Wellesley Hosp., 451 Mass. at 784.
Prior to 2000, the statutory period for conducting the hearing
was fourteen days and has since been statutorily reduced to
five.7 G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c), as amended by St. 2004, c. 410,
§ 1. These amendments make it clear that the Legislature
intended to protect the individual's due process rights by
minimizing the length of time for which he or she could be
involuntarily committed prior to judicial review. See District
7
In 2000, the number of days was reduced from fourteen to
four and in 2004 the number was increased to five, and has
remained there since. See G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c), as amended by
St. 2000, c. 249, § 1, and St. 2004, c. 410, § 1.
9
Court Committee on Mental Health and Retardation, Report of the
Ad Hoc Committee to Review G. L. c. 123, § 12, at 1, 4 (Oct. 21,
1997) (recommending reduction in period between filing of
petition and commencement of hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 123,
§§ 7 and 8). This reduced time frame may be insufficient to
prepare a meaningful defense in some cases, but the person's due
process right are further protected by the "unless" clause in
the statute, which creates a mechanism by which a person could
delay the proceeding. See G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c). See also
G. L. c. 123, § 8B (c). It is illogical that the Legislature
would shorten the period for conducting these hearings and have
it inure to the detriment of the individual's due process right
to prepare a meaningful defense.
The length of the continuance is within the sound
discretion of the judge. The length of the delay, however,
should be only as long as is reasonably necessary to protect the
individual's right to prepare a meaningful defense.8 In
8
We note that the legislative scheme contemplates that an
adequate case may be prepared in two days, although this time
frame may not be appropriate in all cases. See G. L. c. 123,
§ 5 ("The person shall be allowed not less than two days after
the appearance of his counsel in which to prepare his case and a
hearing shall be conducted forthwith after such period unless
counsel requests a delay").
10
addition, this determination should be made solely with the
patient's interests in mind.9
Where a judge denies the requested continuance she must
state with particularity the reasons why the denial is not
reasonably likely to prejudice a person's ability to prepare a
meaningful defense on the record. Because the denial of a
continuance will require the careful balancing of the due
process rights of the person against any countervailing factors,
these findings will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion
standard.
We recognize that tension exists between a person's
potentially urgent medical needs and that person's due process
right to prepare a meaningful defense. Although the task of
medical professionals in treating such persons may be
challenging, under the statutory provisions at issue, expediency
of treatment may not impinge on a person's right to prepare a
defense. Procedures are in place to temporarily treat
individuals while they await civil commitment hearings. See,
e.g., Rogers v. Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Health, 390
Mass. 489, 510-511 (1983). The infringement of a person's
9
Although the statutes are designed to protect a person's
right to prepare a meaningful defense, any delay will
necessarily require that a person remain committed without
judicial review for an additional length of time. A lengthy
delay also may adversely affect a patient's medical situation,
and it may be appropriate for a judge to consider this when
determining the length of the continuance.
11
liberty interest resulting from involuntary commitment for six
months is "massive" and should only be undertaken after the
person has the opportunity to prepare a meaningful defense. See
Newton-Wellesley Hosp., 451 Mass. at 784, quoting Commonwealth
v. Nassar, 380 Mass. 908, 917 (1980).
Conclusion. The grant of a first request for a continuance
pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c) or 8B (c), is mandatory where
a denial thereof is reasonably likely to prejudice a person's
ability to prepare a meaningful defense. N.L.'s appeal is
dismissed as moot.
So ordered.