Asm v. State

• Decision Date: 12 October 2021
• Docket Number: S-21-0026
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF ASM: ASM, Appellant (Respondent), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Petitioner).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2021 WY 109

IN THE INTEREST OF ASM: ASM, Appellant (Respondent), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Petitioner).

No. S-21-0026

Supreme Court of Wyoming

October 12, 2021

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County The Honorable Tori R.A. Kricken, Judge

Representing Appellant: Jennifer K. Stone of Schilling, Winn & Stone, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Jennifer M. Curran, Deputy, Albany County Attorney & Prosecuting Attorney's Office Laramie, Wyoming.

Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

BOOMGAARDEN, JUSTICE.

[¶1] The district court determined that ASM, a middle-aged woman needed to be involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-110 because she was mentally ill as defined under § 25-10-101(a). On appeal ASM claims the court erred when it found her mentally ill. She also claims the court violated her constitutional right to free exercise of religion. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We rephrase the issues:

I. Did the district court err when it found ASM mentally ill as defined under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-101(a)?

II. Did the district court deny ASM her constitutional right to free exercise of religion?

FACTS

[¶3] ASM began injuring herself in October 2020, while she was detained at the Albany County Detention Center on arson charges.

[¶4] On October 13, the Albany County & Prosecuting Attorney applied for emergency detention of ASM under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-109. The county attorney attached two documents to the application. In the first, an "Emergency Detention Crisis Assessment Form," a detention officer explained that ASM had been placed in the restraint chair at least 16 times in the last two weeks due to self-injury. ASM had punched herself in the face and bashed her head against the wall to the point that she split her head open and her eyes had swollen shut. She also scratched the skin off her face. In the second, a psychiatric evaluation, Patrick W. Tufts, MD, reported that ASM was engaging in self-harm behaviors due to mental illness and needed a safe and stabilizing environment. The district court promptly appointed ASM counsel and held a hearing the next day.

[¶5] Following that hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that ASM was mentally ill. It ordered that she be detained at Ivinson Memorial Hospital - Behavioral Health Services (BHS) for a period not to exceed 10 days, where she could be prescribed and administered psychotropic medications to stabilize her mental health.

[¶6] Before the 10-day period expired, the county attorney requested a hearing to determine whether ASM needed to be involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to § 25-10-110. In accordance with § 25-10-110(e), the court ordered Joseph Schaaf, MD, and Tina Nirk, MS, LCP, to examine ASM. They provided a written report of their findings on her history and mental illness.^[1] A district court commissioner held a hearing on October 23, where Dr. Schaaf and ASM testified. After receiving the commissioner's recommendation, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that ASM was mentally ill and ordered that she be hospitalized at the Wyoming State Hospital.

[¶7] We discuss the facts in more detail as relevant to our analysis.

DISCUSSION

I. The district court did not err when it found ASM mentally ill.

[¶8]

Title 25, Chapter 10 of the Wyoming statutes provides a procedure for the detention and hospitalization of a mentally ill individual, establishing a two-step hearing process in which a district court may first detain a proposed mentally ill individual if a preponderance of the evidence at an informal hearing shows that the person is mentally ill as that term is defined by the statute. §§ 25-10-109, 101(a)(ix). The statutes then provide for a more formal hearing on whether the patient should be involuntarily hospitalized. At that hearing, a patient has the right to have the court (or a jury if one is timely requested) determine whether [s]he suffers from mental illness to the extent that [s]he is a danger to [herself] or others. § 25-10-110(h), (j).

State ex rel. W. Park Hosp. Dist. v. Skoric, 2014 WY 41, ¶ 12, 321 P.3d 334, 339 (Wyo. 2014).

[¶9] If, after the hearing and consideration of the record, the court or jury "finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient is mentally ill the court shall consider the least restrictive and most therapeutic alternatives," which may include hospitalization. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-110(j) (LexisNexis 2021); see also In re RB, 2013 WY 15, ¶ 24, 294 P.3d 24, 31 (Wyo. 2013). "Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that would persuade a finder of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable." Heimer v. Heimer, 2021 WY 97, ¶ 15, 494 P.3d 472, 477 (Wyo. 2021) (citation omitted).

[¶10] The statutes define a person as "mentally ill" if she has "a physical, emotional, mental or behavioral disorder which causes [her] to be dangerous to [herself] or others and which requires treatment[.]" Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-101(a)(ix) (LexisNexis 2021). A person is deemed a danger to herself or others if, as a result of mental illness, she:

(A) Evidences a substantial probability of physical harm to [herself] as manifested by evidence of recent threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm; or

(B) Evidences a substantial probability of physical harm to other individuals as manifested by a recent overt homicidal act, attempt or threat or other violent act, attempt or threat which places others in reasonable fear of serious physical harm to them; or

(C)Evidences behavior manifested by recent acts or omissions that, due to mental illness, [s]he is unable to satisfy basic needs for nourishment, essential medical care, shelter or safety so that a substantial probability exists that death, serious physical injury, serious physical debilitation, serious mental debilitation, destabilization from lack of or refusal to take prescribed psychotropic medications for a diagnosed condition or serious physical disease will imminently ensue, unless the individual receives prompt and adequate treatment for this mental illness. No person, however, shall be deemed to be unable to satisfy [her] need for nourishment, essential medical care, shelter or safety if [s]he is able to satisfy those needs with the supervision and assistance of others who are willing and available[.]

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-101(a)(ii)(A)-(C). "While this definition requires evidence of recent acts or omissions of endangerment, either to self or others, a court may consider a person's mental health history in determining whether directed outpatient commitment or involuntary hospitalization is warranted." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-101(a)(ii)(D).

[¶11] The district court found by clear and convincing evidence that ASM was mentally ill under § 25-10-101(a)(ix) and posed a danger to herself under both (a)(ii)(A) and (C). ASM challenges the court's finding that she posed a danger to herself, suggesting no evidence supported a finding under either provision.

[¶12] We review the court's decision under our familiar bench trial standard of review:

The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review afforded a jury verdict. While the findings are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review does not entail weighing disputed evidence. Findings of fact will not be set aside unless the findings are clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. We review a district court's conclusions of law de novo on appeal.

Denbury Onshore, LLC v. APMTG Helium LLC, 2020 WY 146, ¶ 25, 476 P.3d 1098, 1105 (Wyo. 2020) (citation omitted). We affirm under (a)(ix) and (a)(ii)(A), examining each relevant part of those definitions in turn-specifically, (1) whether ASM had "a physical, emotional, mental or behavioral disorder"; (2) which caused her to be dangerous to herself in that she "[e]vidence[d] a substantial probability of physical harm to [herself] as manifested by evidence of recent threats of or attempts at . . . serious bodily harm"; and (3) "which require[d] treatment[.]"

Physical, emotional, mental or behavioral disorder

[¶13] Dr. Schaaf's testimony and the written report support the district court's finding that ASM had "a physical, emotional, mental or behavioral disorder[.]" Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-101(a)(ix). Dr. Schaaf testified that ASM's "[p]rimary diagnosis [was] mixed personality disorder including features of schizotypal antisocial narcissism and borderline." Her "[s]econdary diagnosis [was] delusional disorder, grandiose type and following that would be potential bipolar disorder unspecified." The written report reflected similarly. ASM generally denied having a mental illness and confirmed that she had asked her counsel to obtain a second opinion about her diagnosis, but presented no other evidence to rebut Dr. Schaaf's diagnosis.

Caused her to be dangerous to herself

[¶14] The "Emergency Detention Crisis Assessment Form," considered together with Dr. Schaaf's testimony at each hearing, supports the court's finding that ASM's disorder caused her to be a danger to herself. The form, dated October 13, 2020, detailed the extent to which ASM had been injuring herself in the detention facility in the weeks leading up to her transfer to BHS:

In the last two weeks, [ASM] has been placed in the restraint "violent" chair at least 16 times due to self[-]injury. She

...