IN RE: R.S.H. (2021)

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.2021-07-20No. No. COA20-777

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the involuntary commitment order, finding no due process violation and concluding that the respondent failed to preserve her evidentiary challenges by not objecting appropriately at the hearing.

A young woman was brought to a hospital by her mother after experiencing suicidal thoughts and hearing voices commanding self-harm. Two examining psychiatrists determined she was mentally ill and posed a danger to herself, leading to a petition for involuntary commitment. At the commitment hearing, a hospital doctor testified about the respondent's medical history, she was permitted to testify and cross-examine the doctor, and the trial court ordered a thirty-day involuntary commitment.

On appeal, the respondent raised two challenges. First, she claimed her due process rights were violated because the trial court assumed the role of the state by calling the psychiatrist as a witness, since neither the state nor hospital had legal representation present. The court rejected this argument by reference to related precedent. Second, she argued certain findings rested on inadmissible hearsay and matters beyond the testifying doctor's personal knowledge, preventing meaningful cross-examination. The court found this argument was not properly preserved because the respondent failed to lodge appropriate objections during the hearing itself.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether trial court violated due process by calling medical witness when neither state nor hospital was represented by counsel
Whether findings based on hearsay and matters outside the doctor's personal knowledge were admissible
Preservation of evidentiary objections in involuntary commitment proceedings

Procedural posture

The respondent appealed from the trial court's order committing her to inpatient psychiatric care for thirty days, arguing due process and evidentiary violations.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

¶ 1 Respondent appeals from an involuntary commitment order committing her to an inpatient facility for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.

I. Background

¶ 2 Respondent is a young woman who was brought to Duke University Medical Center (the “hospital”) by her mother. She was examined by a psychiatrist who determined that Respondent had suicidal tendencies with voices inside her head telling her to harm herself. The psychiatrist opined that Respondent was mentally ill and a danger to herself, recommending she be committed for a short period to allow for her psychotic symptoms to be stabilized. The psychiatrist filed a petition to have Respondent involuntarily committed.

¶ 3 Respondent was subsequently examined by another doctor, who also opined that Respondent was mentally ill and a danger to herself, diagnosing her with acute psychosis.

¶ 4 On 19 June 2020, the trial court held the involuntary commitment hearing. Neither the State nor the hospital was represented by counsel. A third doctor from the hospital did appear. The trial court called the doctor to testify. The doctor proceeded to give a detailed account of Respondents medical history. Respondents counsel was allowed to cross-examine the doctor. Respondent was also allowed to testify.

¶ 5 Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order directing that Respondent be involuntarily committed for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. Respondent appeals.

II. Analysis

¶ 6 On appeal, Respondent makes essentially two arguments.

First, Respondent argues that her due process rights were violated because the trial court took on the role of the State by calling the psychiatrist as a witness, as neither the State nor the hospital were represented by counsel.

¶ 7 For the reasons stated in the majority opinion and concurring opinion addressing the “Due Process Concerns” issue in In re C.G., ––– N.C. App. ––––, 2021-NCCOA-344, one of the other cases heard by this panel on 10 March 2021, we disagree.

¶ 8 Second, Respondent argues that certain findings made by the trial court were based on either incompetent evidence or no evidence.

¶ 9 Specifically, Respondent argues that certain findings were based on hearsay reports, matters about which the testifying doctor had no first-hand knowledge, depriving her counsel of any meaningful cross-examination. We note that our General Statutes provide that “[c]ertified copies of reports and findings of commitment examiners and previous and current medical records are admissible in evidence, but the respondents right to confront and cross-examine witnesses may not be denied.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-268(f) (2020). We hold that Respondent has failed to preserve any argument concerning the admissibility of reports relied upon by the trial court and the testifying doctor in this matter, as she failed to object appropriately at the hearing. ¶ 10 We have reviewed the remaining evidentiary arguments and conclude that the unchallenged findings support the conclusions and order.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

¶ 11 I dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in In re C.G., ––– N.C. App. ––––, 2021-NCCOA-344, a companion case heard by this panel on 10 March 2021.

FOOTNOTES

. Respondents appeal is not moot even though her period of involuntary commitment has expired. See In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 695, 231 S.E.2d 633, 635 (1977) (“The possibility that respondents commitment in this case might likewise form the basis for a future commitment, along with other obvious collateral consequences, convinces us that this appeal is not moot.”).

. We grant Respondents Petition for Writ of Certiorari to consider these issues.

DILLON, Judge.

Judge HAMPSON concurs.

Judge GRIFFIN dissents.