Chalk v. State
| Decision Date | 04 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1097,83-1097 |
| Citation | 443 So.2d 421 |
| Parties | Robert CHALK, Appellant/Patient, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Judge C. Luckey, Jr., Public Defender, and Gary G. Graham, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant/patient.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Dean C. Kowalchyk, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant/patient, Robert Chalk, appeals the order involuntarily committing him to a mental institution. At the involuntary placement hearing, one of the psychiatrists who signed the petition for involuntary commitment was the only witness. The state attorney asked appellant's counsel to stipulate as to the psychiatrist's qualifications. Appellant's counsel refused. The court immediately declared that the psychiatrist was an expert witness. No further inquiry was made into the doctor's credentials. Appellant argues that the court improperly found that the psychiatrist was an expert witness.
At the end of the hearing, appellant's counsel requested permission to make a closing argument. The trial judge denied the request saying, "I will not listen to your argument," and stated, "I think the court is able to remember twenty minutes of evidence."
Appellant argues that the trial court's refusal to allow closing argument violated his due process rights.
Involuntary commitment has been termed "a massive curtailment of liberty." Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 509, 92 S.Ct. 1048, 1052, 31 L.Ed.2d 394 (1972). "Those whom the state seeks to involuntarily commit to a mental institution are entitled to the protection of our Constitutions, as are those incarcerated in our correctional institutions." Shuman v. State, 358 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Fla.1978). The subject of an involuntary commitment has a right to the effective assistance of counsel at all judicial proceedings which could result in a limitation on the subject's liberty. § 394.467(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1982), and In Re Beverly, 342 So.2d 481, 489 (Fla.1977).
In Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 859, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 2554, 45 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 (1975), the court stated "the overwhelming weight of authority, in both federal and state courts, holds that a total denial of the opportunity for final argument in a nonjury criminal trial is a denial of the basic right of the accused to make his defense."
Under Herring and Shuman, appellant's constitutional due process rights were violated when his trial counsel was not allowed to present a closing argument.
Due to the shortness of the hearing, closing argument seemed unwarranted to the trial judge in this case. The United States Supreme Court addressed this problem in Herring.
Some cases may appear to the trial judge to be simple--open and shut--at the close of the evidence. And surely in many such cases a closing argument will, in the words of Mr. Justice Jackson, be "likely to leave [a] judge just where it found him." But just as surely, there will be cases where closing argument may correct a premature misjudgment and avoid an otherwise erroneous verdict. And there is no certain way for a trial judge to identify accurately which cases these will be, until the judge has heard the closing summation of counsel. (Footnotes omitted.)
Id. 422 U.S. at 863, 95 S.Ct. at 2556, 45 L.Ed.2d at 601.
Thus, a defendant has a right to a closing argument regardless of the length of the hearing or the apparent simplicity of the issues presented.
Appellee also argues that the psychiatrist's testimony was required by section 394.467(3)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982) and, therefore, inquiry into his qualifications would not be relevant. Section 394.467(3)(a) provides that one of the mental health professionals who signed the petition for involuntary commitment must testify at the hearing for involuntary commitment. In this case, the psychiatrist's testimony was offered and accepted in accordance with that statute. Nonetheless, an unquestioning acceptance of the psychiatrist's credentials is not required by the statute. The psychiatrist was the only witness in this case. His testimony was the primary basis for committing appellant to a mental institution. Appellant's counsel should have been allowed to discover, through cross-examination, information about the doctor's education and experience which would affect the reliability of his judgment in this case.
Here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. State
...is a massive deprivation of liberty which the state cannot accomplish without due process of law."); see also Chalk v. State, 443 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding that patient's constitutional due process rights were violated when presiding judge prevented his attorney from presen......
-
Bleiweiss v. State
...judicial proceeding that could deprive him of his liberty—the most fundamental of all due process rights. See Chalk v. State, 443 So.2d 421, 422-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding that patient's constitutional due process rights were violated when his trial counsel was not allowed to present a ......
-
Pettry v. Pettry
...v. Mt. Dora Growers Cooperative, 495 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Woodham v. Roy, 471 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Chalk v. State, 443 So.2d 421 (Fla.App. 1984). Perhaps the additional witnesses would not have impressed the court, but the husband had the right to present them and to ar......
-
Estevez v. State, 97-826
...See Gunn v. State, 643 So.2d 677, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); E.C. v. State, 588 So.2d 698, 698-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Chalk v. State, 443 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); E.V.R. v. State, 342 So.2d 93, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA We (1) strike the untimely ground for revocation from the order; (2) affi......