In The Matter Of: George Murrow
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA12-148 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 July 2012 In the Matter of: George Murrow Wake County No. 11-580 Appeal by Respondent from judgment entered 11 August 2011 by Judge James R. Fullwood in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 June 2012. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, by Renee J. Montgomery and Matthew W. Wolfe, for Petitioner-appellee, Holly Hill Hospital.1 Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Kristen L. Todd, for Respondent-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. 1 Although N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-272 provides that the State s interest is to be represented by the Attorney General in appeals from judgments ordering involuntary commitment, the record discloses that the State was not involved in this proceeding in the district court and apparently neither Respondent nor Holly Hill Hospital served notice of the appeal on the State. Thus, the State did not participate, and the issue of its nonparticipation was not raised in this appeal. -2George Murrow ( Respondent ) commitment order. appeals from an involuntary Respondent argues the district court erred by failing to record supporting facts for the court s finding that Respondent was mentally ill and dangerous to himself and others. We agree and reverse. I. On 3 Factual & Procedural Background August Respondent s 2011, Respondent s involuntary commitment. mother petitioned Respondent s for mother claimed that Respondent had a psychotic break 6 weeks [before August 2011] while in California and was a danger to himself. Respondent was examined by two physicians who both recommended commitment, noting Respondent had paranoid thoughts, that he denies problems, and that his family feels [he is a] danger to himself. A commitment hearing was held on 11 August 2011 in Wake County District Court, the Honorable James R. Fullwood, presiding. Petitioner s evidence tended to show the following. Respondent s father testified the that after University at of North Carolina Chapel graduating Hill, from Respondent enrolled in a PhD program at the University of Utah but was later removed after showing signs of including paranoia. Respondent s Respondent then as worked a lab psychological father assistant problems testified and later that at a -3restaurant in Salt Lake City, Utah but lost both jobs. By 1 January 2011, Respondent was sleeping in his car in San Diego, California. According to Respondent s father, Respondent called him for money. phone call Respondent s father testified that he received a from Respondent. the San Respondent s Diego father police asked department the about police seek medical treatment for his son but they did not. to He testified that Respondent started driving up the coast of California, filing stalking reports with police departments, including in Monterrey and San Francisco. Respondent s father received calls from police in both Monterrey and San Francisco. According to Respondent s that taken by father, police to Respondent a San told his Francisco father area he hospital was and involuntarily admitted for six weeks. Respondent s father testified that he went to California and stayed with Respondent during the six week hospitalization. Discharged in March 2011, Respondent returned to North Carolina to live with his father. Respondent s father testified that Respondent briefly went to a program but did not follow the instructions given to him by his doctors. Several weeks after being discharged, Respondent overdosed on prescription drugs and was taken to Lake Norman Hospital. On release, Respondent again -4showed signs of paranoia. Respondent s father testified that Respondent printed articles at the local library about cyberstalking, experiments on humans, and research from the Secretary of the Navy regarding such experimentation. Respondent called his father one afternoon panicked that they needed to change the password on [their] wireless router because [their] password had been compromised. On 3 August 2011, Respondent told his father that he was leaving and would not return. and started walking down Respondent packed his backpack the road. Respondent s father testified that he followed Respondent in his car to a homeless tent camp, five miles from Respondent s father s house, trying to get Respondent to go home with him. Respondent s father confronted Respondent in the camp but left realizing that this was a very bad place to be[.] Respondent s father testified that while at the tent camp, Respondent left his backpack, put on his bathing suit, and went swimming in a nearby lake. Respondent s father testified that Respondent had a real naive feeling about being there. It was like he had arrived [at] Boy Scout camp and checked in. Respondent s father called the Sheriff s department; the Sheriff, four deputies, and a police dog were used to apprehend Respondent and remove him from the -5camp. The Sheriff s department then took Respondent to Davis Hospital in Statesville and involuntarily admitted him. Respondent s conversation father with testified Respondent at that Davis during Hospital, a normal Respondent became violent, would not stop shouting obscenities, covered the camera in his room so he could not be observed, and started throwing things, including trays, tables, and chairs around the room. Respondent was then transferred to Holly Hill Hospital. Respondent was examined by a psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas Jones, for three consecutive days beginning on 8 August 2011. Dr. Jones testified Respondent was originally admitted due to a concern about general paranoid ideation that was interfering with important functions in his life and making basic decisions about safety. Dr. Jones testified Respondent had delusions and Respondent believed people were out to get him. At times, Respondent had taken benzodiazepines for anxiety and stimulant medications, amphetamines, for ADHD. According to Dr. Jones, taking these drugs would increase Respondent s suspiciousness and make his condition worse. he was Hospital, not getting pounding threatening manner. Respondent was very angry that benzodiazepines his fists and while saying at some Holly things Hill in a -6Instead, Dr. Jones prescribed an anti-psychotic, Zyprexa, to reduce Respondent s suspiciousness. Respondent was clear that he Dr. Jones testified that did not want anti-psychotic medications because he felt they were harmful and made him more depressed. Dr. Respondent to administered Jones agree it by stated to that take they Zyprexa injection. waited and one then According to day for forcefully Dr. Jones, Respondent would not take any anti-psychotics if released from the hospital. Dr. Jones testified that, as of the time of the hearing, the medication had not had sufficient time to show its effectiveness. Dr. Jones also testified that Respondent presents quite well, and he is an intelligent, thoughtful person who has many strengths and can do quite well at times. Dr. Jones stated that Respondent has a side of him that s very sensitive to people s According feelings to Dr. and Jones, has many Respondent positive was very qualities. sharp and articulate. At the hearing, Respondent s evidence tended to show the following. Respondent testified after he leaving continued the to hospital receive psychiatric treatment in San Francisco. He testified he would not take any anti-psychotic -7medications because they made him depressed and suicidal, but he would take other prescribed medications. Respondent stated that his previous drug overdose was based on a misunderstanding of the appropriate dosage. Respondent testified that he met with Dr. Jones for a total of thirty minutes over two days. Though he had offers to stay with his parents or his friends, Respondent testified that he preferred to stay at a homeless shelter as an adventure because it was the best way to adhere to my values and achieve my happiness. Finally, Respondent testified that he had attention deficit disorder and anxiety. At the close of the evidence, the district court determined Respondent had a mental illness and there existed a rational inference, clear, cogent, and convincing, [that Respondent was] dangerous to self or Respondent to outpatient others. commitment. Judge Fullwood complete provided The fourteen On the only RESPONDENT CONTESTS COMMITMENT. district days inpatient involuntary these court and 76 commitment supporting facts: days order, THE THE RESPONDENT IS MENTALLY-ILL, A DANGER TO SELF/OTHERS, AND IN NEED OF TREATMENT. entered timely notice of appeal. II. ordered Jurisdiction Respondent -8As Defendant appeals from the final judgment of a district court, an appeal lies of right with this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(c) (2011). III. Analysis Respondent argues the district court erred by failing to record sufficient finding that supporting Respondent himself and others. was facts for mentally the ill court s and ultimate dangerous to We agree. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-268(j) (2011) provides that [t]o support an inpatient commitment order, the court shall find by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the respondent is mentally ill others. . . . findings. and dangerous to self . . . or dangerous to The court shall record the facts that support its The findings that the Respondent is mentally ill and dangerous to himself or others are not conclusions of law but instead are findings of the ultimate facts. In re Hogan, 32 N.C. App. 429, 433, 232 S.E.2d 492, 494 (1977). The question then becomes whether the court s ultimate findings [of fact] are indeed supported by the facts which the court recorded in its order as supporting its findings. Id. (emphasis added). Where insufficient supporting facts are recorded by the trial court, this Court must reverse the trial court s order. In re -9Booker, 193 N.C. (reversing a respondent was alcohol [who] App. 433, commitment a 56 order year abuse/dependence, [c]ontinues to 437, 667 because old white admitted be S.E.2d 302, the facts male, with symptomatic 304 with manic with (2008) that the history of episode limited . . . insight regarding his illness . . . are insufficient to support the trial court s determination that [the r]espondent was dangerous to himself and to others (quotation marks omitted) (third alteration in original)). Here, the trial court s ultimate findings of fact are that the Respondent is mentally ill and is dangerous to self and others. However, the district court did not record in its order sufficient facts to support these ultimate findings as required by N.C. Gen. Stat § 122C-268(j). wrote only MENTALLY that ILL, TREATMENT, A and, The district court Respondent CONTESTS DANGER SELF/OTHERS, TO therefore, based on COMMITMENT AND this IN and IS NEED OF Court s clear precedent, we reverse. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the district court s order is Reversed. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge ELMORE concur. -10Report per Rule 30(e).
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.
