Powers v. State, 5617

• Decision Date: 28 October 1976
• Docket Number: No. 5617,5617
• Citation: 543 S.W.2d 194
• Parties: Dennis POWERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 194

543 S.W.2d 194

Dennis POWERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas Appellee.

No. 5617.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas,

Waco.

Oct. 28, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1976.

Jim Crow, Waco, for appellant.

Martin D. Eichelberger, Waco, for appellee.

OPINION

JAMES, Justice.

This is a mental illness case, Appellant Dennis Powers having been committed for an indefinite period by the County Court of McLennan County, Texas. Trial was to a jury which found: (1) That Powers is mentally ill, and (2) he requires hospitalization in a mental hospital for his own welfare and protection or the protection of others. Based upon the jury verdict, the trial court entered judgment which decreed Powers to be mentally ill and committed him for an indefinite period to the Veterans Administration Hospital at Waco, Texas.

Appellant assails the trial court's judgment on four points of error, to wit: that the court committed fundamental error and thereby violated due process (1) by applying a vague standard of commitment, (2) in using the wrong burden of proof in submission of special issues to the jury, and (3) by 'not giving notice to Appellant of his right to an independent medical examination.' Appellant's remaining point complains of legal insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's answers to the special issues. We overrule all of Appellant's points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

We revert to Appellant's first point, that is, that the trial court applied a vague standard of commitment and thereby violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The trial court submitted special issues to the jury in compliance with Article 5547--51, Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes. Special Issue No. 2 inquired of the jury: 'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that the proposed patient requires hospitalization in a mental hospital for his own welfare and protection or the protection of others?' Appellant says that this standard of commitment is too vague because it leaves the jury free to decide whether to commit the Appellant without any fixed legal standard and that such a standard lends itself to arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent applications of the law. We do not agree.

Appellant has cited us to no Texas case holding that the standard of commitment prescribed by Article 5547--51 is unconstitutional, and we have found none. Moreover, we find authority from among the decisions of Federal Courts which tend to uphold the constitutionality of the Texas standard of commitment prescribed by Article 5547--51. See Humphrey v. Cady (1972) 405 U.S. 504, 509, 92 S.Ct., 1048, 31 L.Ed.2d 394. In Humphrey the U.S. Supreme Court in dictum at 92 S.Ct. 1052 recites with implied approval the standard of commitment prescribed by the Mental Health Act of the State of Wisconsin, which is very similar to and substantially the same as the Texas standard. Also see Reynolds v. Sheldon (D.C.Texas 1975) 404 F.Supp. 1004, 1009; Bell v. Wayne County General Hospital at Eloise (D.C.Michigan 1974) 384 F.Supp. 1085, 1096, 1102. In the absence of any Texas case law on the subject, and in the light of the Federal authorities hereinabove cited, we hold that the standard of commitment prescribed by Article 5547--51 is constitutional. Appellant's first point is overruled.

Appellant's second point asserts the trial court erred in requiring the State to prove its case by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' and contends thereby that appellant has been denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Appellant says the trial court should have required and applied a more stringent burden of proof for the State to assume, such as proof by 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence' or proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' We overrule this point of error and these contentions.

In the case at bar, the trial court submitted the two special issues hereinabove mentioned by prefacing each with the language:

'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence ------?' The Mental Health Code of the State of Texas (Article 5547--1 to 204, inclusive, Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes) does not prescribe the burden of proof to be imposed upon the State in commitment proceedings. However, it has been held in Texas...