MATTER OF N B
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-147 IN THE SUPREMI3 COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN THE MATTER OF N.B. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: James D. Johnson, Montana Legal Services, argued, Warm Springs, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Sheri Sprigg argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted: Filed: *PC - :h ~ u J)I~[L Decided : November 21, 1980 ftE0 2 4 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Court. Sheehy C. delivered a p p e a l s from an o r d e r o f N.B. District Court, hearing, Yellowstone the of the the Thirteenth Judicial County. t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made Opinion a After finding a nonjury t h a t N.B. was He was i n v o l u n t a r i l y c o m m i t t e d t o s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l f o r t h r e e months o f e v a l u a t i o n and t r e a t m e n t . This appeal r a i s e s the following issues f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t commit e r r o r i n i t s f i n d i n g s 1. by using standard "reasonable of medical persuasion certainty" necessary to find as the legal seriously N.B. mentally i l l ? 2. be Does t h e c l a u s e " e x c e p t t h a t m e n t a l d i s o r d e r s s h a l l evidenced section to a reasonable medical 53-21-126(2), persuasion required lower MCA, in civil t h e " c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g " certainty" the legal commitment found in standard of proceedings below s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d by F o u r t e e n t h Amendment d u e p r o c e s s ? Can t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r t h e s e i s s u e s where N.B. 3. I s commitment may be m o o t , and where t h e i s s u e s were n o t r a i s e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court? W e hold that these issues are properly before us. Although w e b e l i e v e t h e s t a t u t o r y l e g a l s t a n d a r d f o r proving s e r i o u s mental dismiss the illness order of constitutional, is the District we Court. reverse and The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d by u s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d f o r j u d g i n g t h e c o m p e t e n c e of a medical legal standard witness1 testimony of persuasion was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y i l l . developed for the required d e t e r m i n i n g whether N.B. The meager e v i d e n t i a r y r e c o r d i n t h i s case does not case t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court. i n p l a c e of N.B. support a remand of this i s n o t shown i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s t o be s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y i l l by t h e r e q u i r e d l e g a l s t a n d a r d o f p e r s u a s i o n o f c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g p r o o f . On December therapist of 1979, 5, the South Scott Schreiber, Central Montana a counselor- Regional Mental H e a l t h C e n t e r , r e q u e s t e d t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e County A t t o r n e y t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g N.B. and d a n g e r o u s . t o be s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y i l l S c h r e i b e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t N.B. t o a s t a t e mental h o s p i t a l . commitment was filed formal p e t i t i o n f o r N . B . ' s A that be c o m m i t t e d same day. From information included i n the p e t i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court determined t h a t probable cause e x i s t e d t o b e l i e v e mentally The ill. court t h a t N.B. ordered that was s e r i o u s l y undergo N.B. a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n a d m i n i s t e r e d by a p r o f e s s i o n a l o f the South C e n t r a l Apparently for N.B. to 30 Montana satisfy this minutes and Regional Mental order, Schreiber sent a letter a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t N.B. Health Center. visited to the I n t h i s l e t t e r , S c h r e i b e r recommended t h a t N . B . t h e Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital county was " u n m a n a g e a b l e on a n o u t p a t i e n t b a s i s " and " i n need o f l o n g - t e r m to with for treatment.'' be committed a period of three months. An i n - c h a m b e r s h e a r i n g was h e l d on December 11, 1 9 7 9 , r e g a r d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r commitment. the hearing witness to Schreiber. and was represented testify in Schreiber favor by of indicated was p r e s e n t a t counsel. The only commitment N.B.'s that t e s t i f y a s a " p r o f e s s i o n a l person" N.B. h e was q u a l i f i e d was to i n t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e m e n t a l l y ill. S c h r e i b e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d N.B. was a himself was danger seriously to mentally and ill. to In others and that cross-examination, N.B. Schreiber a d m i t t e d t h a t he d i d n o t have a d e g r e e i n p s y c h o l o g y and that based his commitment r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was in part on events not personally known by him. Schreiber a d m i t t e d t h a t N . B . ' s b e h a v i o r improved w h i l e N.B. tranquilizing medication. testified his that medication. In his e r r a t i c behavior own further was t a k i n g defense, can be N.B. controlled by He t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s r e c e n t e r r a t i c b e h a v i o u r o c c u r r e d a f t e r he " r a n o u t " o f m e d i c a t i o n . I n t h e absence of another order no. d i s t r i c t judge for N.B.'s the presiding judge from c h a m b e r s , signed a s t a t e m e n t of i n v o l u n t a r y commitment. Finding 7 made by t h e c o u r t r e a d a s f o l l o w s : mentally ill as defined Code A n n o t a t e d , 1979." in Section committed facility for t h r e e months. submitted to Montana was N.B. then t o t h e Warm S p r i n g s M e n t a l H e a l t h Court, this fact seriously 53-21-102(14) (Emphasis added.) involuntarily of "The R e s p o n d e n t t o a reasonable medical c e r t a i n t y is (N.B.) f i n d i n g s and By the had N.B. time been this a p p e a l was released from t h e facility. Two c a r d i n a l r u l e s o f not render t h i s Court provide t h a t w e w i l l an o p i n i o n c o n c e r n i n g a n i s s u e t h a t i s moot and t h a t a p a r t y may n o t r a i s e a n i s s u e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal to classify release Court. this the i s s u e s he Counsel raises for fears N.B. a s moot because from t h e Warm S p r i n g s f a c i l i t y . we of Counsel may N.B.'s for the S t a t e , a s respondent i n t h i s appeal, argues t h a t t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by N . B . s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e N.B. r a i s e them d u r i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e a r i n g . State acknowledges f i n d i n g of that f a c t no. 7, the District it contends Court t h a t N.B. failed to Although t h e erred in its should f i r s t r e t u r n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and move t h a t c o u r t t o c o r r e c t i t s f i n d i n g s and e n t e r a new o r d e r . The i m p o r t a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l are not rendered moot by N.B.'s questions presented here release from the Warm S p r i n g s mental h e a l t h f a c i l i t y . were i n f o r m e d by each year counsel that During o r a l argument, we a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 Montanans a r e i n v o l u n t a r i l y committed for t h r e e months o f t r e a t m e n t and e v a l u a t i o n i n t h e Warm S p r i n g s f a c i l i t y . The t i m e l y a p p e a l o f an o r d e r o f i n v o l u n t a r i l y commitment by a n y of these persons be£ o r e release is virtually g i v e n o u r r u l e s of a p p e l l a t e p r o c e d u r e . problem p r e s e n t e d repetition, yet impossible The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h i s a p p e a l t h e n " c o u l d be c a p a b l e o f could ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 410 U.S. evade review." 1 1 3 , 93 S . C t . 705, See, Roe 35 L.Ed.2d v. Wade 147. This C o u r t r e s e r v e s t o i t s e l f t h e power t o e x a m i n e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l issues that litigation i n v o l v e broad on a point p u b l i c concerns t o avoid f u t u r e of law. W e reject the State's a r g u m e n t t h a t t h i s a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o raise these issues for the first time on appeal if the a l l e g e d D i s t r i c t Court e r r o r af f e c t s t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of a litigant. See, Halldorson v. Halldorson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont. 1 7 0 , 573 P.2d 1 6 9 . The s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t c l a i m e d N.B. I is r i g h t t o n o t be c o m m i t t e d t o a s t a t e m e n t a l h o s p i t a l s without clear m e n t a l l y ill. S.Ct. t o h a v e b e e n harmed and convincing Addington v. 1 8 0 4 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323. proof that he seriously is T e x a s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 441 U.S. 418, 99 I n Addinqton, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s a s t a n d a r d o f clear and c o n v i n c i n g p r o o f involuntary commitment of dangerous mental proceedings. The Court illness in concluded t h a t p r o o f by mere p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e f a l l s s h o r t o f m e e t i n g t h e demands o f d u e p r o c e s s , w h i l e t h e s t r i n g e n t standard of proof constitutionally beyond be a required reasonable given nuances of mental i l l n e s s d i a g n o s i s . "clear and convincing" standard as the doubt could not subtleties and The C o u r t s e l e c t e d t h e the legal burden of .persuasion in these proceedings after balancing the individual's interests in not being involuntarily confined with the State's disturbed for interests in treatment. The commiting the mentally "clear and convincing" standard was chosen because the loss of liberty resulting from involuntary commitment calls for a convincing showing that the individual suffers from dangerous mental illness. Section 53-21-126(2), MCA, provides Montana's standard of persuasion required in involuntary commitment proceedings : "The standard of proof in any hearing held pursuant to this section is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to any physical facts or evidence and clear and convincing evidence as to all other matters, except that m e n t a l d i s o r d e r s s h a l l be evidenced to a reasonable medical c e r t a i n t y (Emphasis added.) . . ." Counsel for N.B. asserts that section 53-21-126 (2), MCA, creates a "trifurcated" legal standa.rd of persuasion: part proof convincing certainty. contends, beyond proof a reasonable doubt, part and part proof with clear and reasonable medical This final part of the statutory standard, he creates an unconstitutionally low persuasion under the rule in Addington. standard of He argues that proof by reasonable medical certainty is less than clear and convincing proof. We disagree with statute. We find counsel's interpretation of that Montana's bifurcated standard the of persuasion for involuntary commitment is sufficient to pass constitutional scrutiny under Addington. - Our statute requires part proof beyond a reasonable doubt and part clear and convincing proof. We interpret the statute's use of "reasonable medical certainty" only as a standard for the medical witness testifying in commitment proceedings. better A statement is that proof of mental disorders to a reasonable medical is s u f f i c i e n t certainty if, considered w i t h a l l t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e , t h e t r i e r of f a c t i s l e d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e m e n t a l d i s o r d e r e x i s t s by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g p r o o f . A l t h o u g h we f i n d t h i s s t a t u t e t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h e legal standard satisfied by proceeding. of the A persuasion evidence requires it produced in "professional person" was far N.B. ' s of from commitment unknown expertise was t h e s o l e w i t n e s s p r o d u c e d t o p r o v e t h e m e n t a l d i s o r d e r of N . B . was The t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by t h i s " p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n " substantially insufficient with c e r t a i n t y t o p r o v e l e g a l l y t h a t N.B. reasonable medical was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y ill. The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d . erred by using sufficient reasonable standard of medical proof of certainty serious cause because legally p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v e t h a t N.B. alone mental W h i l e we f i n d t h e s t a t u t e t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , this The c o u r t insufficient illness. evidence was s e r i o u s l y m e n t a l l y i l l . Justice Justices a we d i s m i s s R e v e r s e d and d i s m i s s e d . W e Concur: as was
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
