Greene v. State, 16726
| Decision Date | 29 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 16726,16726 |
| Parties | Elease S. GREENE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Michael P. Mallia, Houston, for appellant.
Joe Resweber, County Atty., Oliver J. Guiberteau, Marshall Watkins, Asst. County Attys., Houston, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment ordering the appellant involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for a period not to exceed ninety days. The only record before us is a transcript.
Harriet Taylor, adopted daughter of Mrs. Elease Greene, filed a sworn application for temporary hospitalization dated March 3, 1976, stating that Mrs. Greene was not charged with a criminal offense but mentally ill and needed hospitalization for her own welfare and protection and the protection of others. On March 17 the court issued an order and notice of hearing, setting it on March 25. The judge appointed two physicians to examine Mrs. Greene and their certificates were filed with the trial court. On March 22 Mrs. Greene executed this instrument:
'THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF
I, Elease S. Green, DO HEREBY STATE THAT I DO NOT DESIRE TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY HOSPITALIZATION FILED WITH THE COUNTY COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY ON MY BEHALF.
I DO HEREBY AUTHORIZE SAID COUNTY COURT TO MAKE ITS FINDINGS UPON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATES OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION FOR MENTAL ILLNESS ON FILE WITH SAID COURT, AND TO ADVANCE THE CASE TO BE HEARD AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE.'
It was witnessed by her court-appointed attorney, but was not filed with the court until March 24. The trial court had advanced the hearing to March 23 and filed the commitment order with the waiver. On March 25 Mrs. Greene, acting through another attorney, filed a motion to set aside a judgment. It was denied.
Mrs. Greene's points of error are: (1) the right to be present at commitment hearing cannot be waived, (2) the Texas Mental Health Code is unconstitutional because it does not require the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, (3) it was error not to give notice to Mrs. Greene of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, (4) the trial court erred in not considering alternatives to commitment, and (5) the trial court erred in basing its judgment solely on hearsay evidence. We affirm.
There being no statement of facts and no findings of fact or conclusions of law, such facts as are necessary to support the trial court's judgment must be presumed to have been found. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 143 Tex. 612, 187 S.W.2d 363 (1945).
We overrule Mrs. Greene's first point of error. Due process requires the presence of the person proposed to be involuntarily committed at all judicial proceedings conducted for that purpose, Specht v. Patterson,386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967), unless the right has been knowingly and intelligently waived by such person or by adversary counsel acting in her behalf and for good cause shown. Lynch v. Baxley, D.C., 386 F.Supp. 378 (1974).
We have noted that Mrs. Greene signed a waiver, witnessed by her attorney, stating that she did not desire to be present at the hearing. The appellant has not shown that the trial court failed to meet due process requirements in accepting her waiver of the right to be present.
As to Mrs. Greene's second point of error, we have found no basis for concluding that the Texas Mental Health Code is unconstitutional for failure to require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the proposed patient is mentally ill and needs hospitalization for his own welfare and the protection of himself and others. The statutes under which Mrs. Greene was committed, Art. 5547--31 through 5547--39d, provide that the court may order temporary hospitalization (for not more than 90 days) after a hearing (to be held within 14 days) to determine whether the proposed patient is mentally ill and requires observation or treatment for his own welfare and protection of the protection of others. Art. 5547--38(c) states that if the court finds upon the hearing that the proposed patient is mentally ill and requires treatment or observation but that commitment to a mental hospital is not necessary, the court may order the proposed patient to submit to other suitable treatment or observation. We hold that these statutes, entitled 'TEMPORARY HOSPITALIZATION FOR OBSERVATION AND/OR TREATMENT,' are not unconstitutional for failure to require the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the holding in Lynch v. Baxley, supra, that the proper standard of proof in this civil hearing is not that of reasonable doubt, 'a degree of proof virtually unattainable at this stage in the development of psychiatric medicine.'
The appellant correctly cites In re Ballay, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 482 F.2d 648 (1973), as holding that proof supporting the commitment must be beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, did not hold unconstitutional the D.C. statute authorizing an indefinite commitment but rather held that the appellant was deprived of due process of law because the jury did not determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was mentally ill and consequently dangerous. In our case, since we have no statement of facts before us, we cannot say that the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Greene should have been committed.
Concerning Mrs. Greene's third point of error, the record does not show whether she was given notice of the privilege against self-incrimination. Even if she was not, it has not been shown that she incriminated herself. The privilege against self-incrimination protects any disclosures which the subject may reasonably believe could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moss v. State
...is the proper standard of proof. The Code is not itself subject to attack for failure to specify the standard of proof. Greene v. State, 537 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston (1st Dist.) 1976, no writ). Traditionally this question has been left to the judiciary to resolve. Woodby v. Im......
-
In re MT
...either physical or mental incapacity, deprived her of her fundamental constitutional right to due process of law"); Greene v. State, 537 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tex.Civ.App.1976) ("Due process requires the presence of the person proposed to be involuntarily committed at all judicial proceedings co......
-
C.S. v. State
...(1976), to assess the constitutional sufficiency of procedures). C.S.'s brief quotes at length from the dissenting opinion in Greene v. State, 537 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1976, no writ) (Evans, J., dissenting), but he does not suggest that this dissenting opinion, or ......
-
Chandler v. State
...The privilege extends to any testimony the witness may reasonably believe could lead to criminal prosecution. Greene v. State, 537 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tex.Civ.App.1976, no The question we must answer, then, is this: could Felder have reasonably believed that responding to questions about the i......