Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, Matter of

• Decision Date: 14 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. CV-94-0026-PR,No. MH,MH,CV-94-0026-PR
• Citation: 889 P.2d 1088,181 Ariz. 290
• Parties: In the Matter of an Application for the COMMITMENT OF an ALLEGED MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSON, Coconino County1425.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 1088

889 P.2d 1088

181 Ariz. 290

In the Matter of an Application for the COMMITMENT OF an ALLEGED MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSON, Coconino County No. MH 1425.

No. CV-94-0026-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Feb. 14, 1995.

[181 Ariz. 291] Law Offices of Wendy F. White, P.C. by Wendy F. White, Flagstaff, for petitioner.

Terence C. Hance, Coconino County Atty. by William P. Ring, Deputy County Attorney, Flagstaff, for respondent.

OPINION

ZLAKET, Justice.

The question presented is whether examiners retained to evaluate the mental health of a person facing involuntary commitment may serve as witnesses "acquainted with the patient" under A.R.S. § 36-539(B). We hold that they cannot.

Petitioner was arrested for trespassing on April 2, 1992. He was transferred to the Coconino County jail, where he assaulted another inmate. When the nursing staff reported that petitioner was behaving in a suspicious and paranoid manner, jail personnel initiated involuntary commitment proceedings.

Four mental health professionals, three of whom worked for the same agency, attempted to examine and evaluate petitioner at the jail. The first examiner, Dr. Mark Giesecke, interviewed him for about thirty minutes. Petitioner was in handcuffs during much of this time. He declined the physician's later attempt to conduct a second interview. Petitioner met briefly with the other three examiners but refused to answer their questions. Not surprisingly, all four found him to be guarded, suspicious, and uncooperative. Only Dr. Giesecke, however, reported other abnormal behavior. He believed petitioner displayed inappropriate amusement during his examination. Giesecke also spoke with petitioner's father and brother. They reportedly expressed concern about petitioner's mental health. Neither relative, however, was called as a witness or provided written testimony at the commitment hearing.

Three of the four examiners retained by the county, including Dr. Giesecke, concluded that petitioner was probably suffering from a major mental disorder. Two of them relied heavily on Giesecke's observations. The fourth doctor believed that he did not have enough evidence to reach such a conclusion. Dr. Giesecke and another of those who suspected a major disorder testified as the medical experts at the commitment hearing. The other two submitted written reports ¹ as acquaintance witnesses. These reports clearly contained what purported to be professional evaluations of petitioner's mental health.

Petitioner requested an additional examination by an independent mental health professional, as permitted by A.R.S. § 36-538. The psychologist performing that examination testified at the hearing. She found petitioner cooperative and pleasant, and observed no inappropriate or abnormal behavior during her forty-minute meeting with him. She noted only that he was "guarded and suspicious." She apparently based this conclusion on petitioner's insistence that it was not his burden to establish sanity, but rather the court's to find a mental impairment. Despite her observations to the contrary, however, this psychologist determined that inpatient commitment for schizophrenia was appropriate based on reports of the other examiners and petitioner's family.

The court found that petitioner was likely suffering from schizophrenia. It ordered involuntary commitment and treatment for up to 180 days, pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-540. The court of appeals affirmed, with one judge dissenting. The majority held that "[t]he only requirement [for acquaintance witnesses] is that such witnesses be acquainted with the patient at the time of the mental disorder." In re Coconino County No. MH 1425, 176 Ariz. 525, 528, 862 P.2d 898, 901 (Ct.App.1993).

This case is now moot, as petitioner has completed his term of confinement and, in fact, has served a second 180-day involuntary commitment period. We will occasionally accept a moot case for decision where the issue presented is capable of repetition but evades review, see Sherrill v. Department of Transp., 165 Ariz. 495, 497, 799 P.2d 836, 838 (1990), especially if it has statewide importance. See In re Gila County No. MH 92-020, 176 Ariz. 616, 617, 863 P.2d 908, 909 (Ct.App.1993). Because of the statutory time limits on commitment orders and the delays inherent in the appellate process, the merits of this issue potentially evade our review. Additionally, the parties have agreed that it is common practice to use mental health examiners as acquaintance witnesses. Therefore, because this decision may have a significant impact on the mechanics of involuntary commitment hearings and bears importance beyond the facts of this case, we accepted review.

A.R.S. § 36-539(B) requires that the evidence presented at an involuntary commitment hearing must include "testimony of two or more witnesses acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder and testimony of the two physicians who performed examinations in the evaluation of the patient." (Emphasis added.) It goes on to say that "other persons who have participated in the evaluation of the patient" shall testify at the request of the court or the patient's attorney. Id. "Evaluation," as used in the statute, is the process of determining the mental health of the patient prior to the commitment hearing and normally involves two physicians (preferably psychiatrists) and two other evaluators, at least one of whom shall be a psychologist or social worker. A.R.S. § 36-501(11).

We agree with Judge...