Commitment of Linderman, Matter of
| Decision Date | 16 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-779,3-779 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the COMMITMENT OF Frank LINDERMAN. A 187. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Paula J. Machnik, Legal Intern, Valparaiso University School of Law Clinical Program, Terry E. Johnston, Valparaiso, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
On January 19, 1979, the trial court ordered appellant Frank Linderman involuntarily committed to the Logansport State Hospital for an indefinite period of time. Linderman now appeals from that commitment order raising three issues for our review; because of our disposition of this case, we find it necessary to address only the following question: whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision.
Reversed.
Our mental health code, specifically Ind. Code 16-14-9.1-3 and 16-14-9.1-10, authorizes the State to commit an individual who is found to be suffering from a mental illness and is either dangerous or gravely disabled. The code defines "dangerous" as "a condition in which a person as a result of mental illness presents a substantial risk that he will harm himself or others." Ind. Code 16-14-9.1-1(c). "Gravely disabled" is defined as "that condition in which a person ... is in danger of coming to harm because of his inability to provide for his food, clothing, shelter, or other essential human needs." Ind. Code 16-14-9.1-1(b). It was the State's burden in this case to prove the facts justifying commitment by clear and convincing evidence. Addington v. Texas, (1979) 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323.
This commitment proceeding was commenced by Mr. Lee Miller, warden of the Porter County Police Department, at a time when appellant Linderman was being held at the Porter County Jail awaiting transportation to the State Farm to serve a one year sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol. Miller filed the petition for involuntary commitment because he believed there was "something radically wrong with Frank." Miller based this conclusion upon certain conversations he had had with Linderman during the period of his incarceration. According to Miller, Linderman claimed other people had stolen from him and were putting "acid" on him and poisoning him for no apparent reason. Miller testified that he found no basis in fact for Linderman's complaints and accusations. On direct examination Miller expressed his opinion that Linderman might cause harm to himself or others and was not able to take care of himself. But during cross-examination Miller admitted he had no knowledge of Linderman ever having attempted to cause physical harm to himself or anyone else; nor was Miller aware of Linderman's occupation or financial status.
The trial court also heard the testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. Borivoj Divcic. Dr. Divcic found appellant Linderman to be psychotic and suffering from hallucinations and delusions. It was Divcic's opinion that Linderman was unable to take care of himself and needed long-term hospitalization.
The only other testimony came from Ms. Vickie Conquest, a Porter County Probation Officer who had contact with Linderman since May of 1978. Conquest testified that Linderman visited her at her office sometimes three or four times a month. She stated that on several occasions she had observed Linderman driving his car and that "he always seemed to be mobile and have money in his pocket."
While this evidence was sufficient to prove Frank Linderman suffered from a mental illness, the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was "dangerous." There was no evidence Linderman ever threatened physical harm to himself or anyone else; there was, in fact, no evidence of any violent behavior.
Nor do we find the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Linderman was "in danger of coming to harm...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commitment of J.B. v. Midtown Mental Health Center
...an involuntary commitment by clear and convincing evidence. In Re Turner (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 201; Matter of Commitment of Linderman (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1140. This standard of proof not only communicates the relative importance our legal system attaches to a decision orderi......
-
GPH v. Giles
...v. Donaldson (1975), 422 U.S. 563, 576, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 2494, 45 L.Ed.2d 396, 407. GPH next cites In the Matter of the Commitment of Linderman (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1140, 1141, for the proposition that "the burden rests with the State to prove a reasonable attempt has been made to con......
-
Jones v. State
...the elements upon which commitment is ordered must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Addington, supra; In re Commitment of Linderman (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1140. In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the judgment alon......
-
Cheek v. State
...the State was not required to negate the possibility that he could be cared for by family or friends. The Matter of Commitment of Linderman (1981), Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 1140, (State must negate possibility that individual could be cared for by family if individual is not dangerous). Further......