In re A.B.
| Decision Date | 03 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10A01–1109–MH–483.,10A01–1109–MH–483. |
| Citation | 970 N.E.2d 270 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Involuntary COMMITMENT OF A.B. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Clark Superior Court; The Honorable Vicki L. Carmichael, Judge; Cause No. 10D01–0910–MH–1.
Bruce A. Brightwell, New Albany, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Kathy Bradley, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
A.B. appeals the trial court's order continuing his involuntary regular commitment following a review hearing. A.B. presents several issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court's order.
We affirm.
In approximately November 2000, A.B., who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, “started to have auditory hallucinations.” Respondent's Exh. 3 at 3. A.B. heard voices in his head, and “[a]s the frequency and intensity of the voices progressed they would talk and warn him about people going into his house or setting him up for a crime that would allow police to kill him.” Id. Accordingly, he began to “act on these voices to try and prevent things from happening to him.” Id. For example, A.B. boarded up the windows on his house to prevent people from breaking in, and he began to carry and sleep with a gun.
On November 2, 2001, A.B. drove to the Green Tree Mall in Clarksville. After visiting a couple of department stores, he returned to the parking lot. There, he saw a man, K.K., whom he recognized as someone he had met in January 2001 while on vacation in Jamaica. A.B. heard voices in his head telling him that K.K. was “setting him up and that [K.K.]'s brother was a dirty police officer who was going to plant drugs in his house” and who would “arrest him and put him in a cell with a homosexual or kill him and make it look like a suicide.” Id. A.B. then dragged K.K. from his car and shot and killed him in front of K.K.'s wife.
The State charged A.B. with murder, and a jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. The State then filed a petition for A .B.'s involuntary commitment, and, on February 19, 2002, the trial court granted the State's petition and ordered A.B. committed to a state hospital. Since that time, the trial court has continuously reviewed and renewed A.B.'s involuntary commitment.
On December 9, 2009, A.B. filed a motion for hearing to review status, and that hearing was held on June 11 and 30 and February 3 and 23, 2011. Following that hearing, the trial court ordered that A .B.'s involuntary commitment “should continue in full force and effect.” Appellant's App. at 29. In support of that order, the trial court made the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Any point identified herein as a finding of fact may be considered a conclusion of law to the extent it may be appropriate to do so, and any point identified herein as a conclusion of law may also be considered to be a finding of fact to the extent it may be appropriate to do so.
2. [A.B.] was found Not Responsible by Reason of Insanity of the crime of murder on January 15, 2002.
3. The facts surrounding the killing are well documented in the Court's record, and are not disputed by [A.B.].
4. It is undisputed that, during a period of psychosis, suffering from delusions and paranoia, [A.B.] killed a complete stranger with no provocation.
5. Following the verdict of not responsible by reason of insanity, pursuant to Indiana Code § 35–36–2–4, the Prosecutor filed a Petition for Involuntary Commitment under Indiana Code § 12–26–7 et seq.
6. The Court entered an Order of Involuntary Commitment on February 20, 2002, and that Commitment order has been continuously renewed by the Court pursuant to Indiana Code § 12–26–15 et seq.
7. [A.B.] filed his Motion for Hearing to Review Status on October 13, 2009, which constitutes a request for review hearing under Indiana Code § 12–26–15 et seq.
8. The Court conducted an ongoing review hearing in this matter, recessed and resumed, on each of the following dates: June 11, 2010[;] June 30, 2010 [;] February 3, 2011[;] and February 23, 2011.
9. Vincent Porter, M.D. is the examining physician for purposes of Indiana Code § 12–26 et seq. He is qualified as an expert in general psychiatry. Dr. Porter has been [A.B.]'s treating psychiatrist since November 2008. Dr. Porter testified on June 11, 2010[;] June 30, 2010[;] and February 3, 2011, on behalf of Madison State Hospital.
10. George Parker, M.D. is Medical Director for the Division of Mental Health and Addiction. He is Board Certified in General Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry. (Exhibit 1, Deposition of Dr. George Parker; transcript of 2/23/2011 hearing, pp. 128–129).
11. Dr. Parker is qualified as an expert in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.
12. Daniel Yohanna, M.D. testified on behalf of Respondent [A.B.]
13. Dr. Yohanna is Board Certified in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry. (Transcript 6/11/2010, p. 44).
14. Dr. Yohanna is qualified as an expert in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.
15. Dr. Yohanna met [A.B.] on only two occasions: once in early 2008 for approximately three (3) hours, and once on June 11, 2010[,] for approximately thirty (30) minutes. (Transcript 6/11/2010, pp. 48–49).
16. Dr. Parker testified that he met [A.B.] three times for a total of two (2) to three and one half (3 1/2) hours. (Transcript 2/23/11, pp. 154–155.)
17. Dr. Yohanna's experience with patients like [A.B.] is primarily in Illinois, not Indiana. (Transcript 6/30/2010, page 61).
18. Dr. Parker has nine and one half (9 1/2) years experience in Indiana. (Transcript 2/23/2011, page 133).
19. The Court finds the testimony of all the expert witnesses to be credible; however, the testimony of the examining physician, Dr. Porter, is entitled to greater weight than the testimony of the evaluating experts.
20. Susan Brown is the state hospital liason for LifeSpring Mental Health Center, the outpatient facility that will be responsible for providing services to [A.B.] upon his discharge from Madison State Hospital. (Transcript 2/23/11, p. 5, 11, 19.)
21. Because he was found Not Responsible by Reason of Insanity, under Indiana Code § 12–24–12–10(b), [A.B.]'s statutory gatekeeper is the Division of Mental Health and Addiction [ (“DMHA”) ].
22. It is undisputed that [A.B.] suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid type. (Testimony of Dr. Yohanna, testimony of Dr. Parker, testimony of Dr. Porter).
23. Schizophrenia is a mental illness as defined in Indiana Code § 12–7–2–130.
24. It is undisputed by all of the experts that schizophrenia is a lifelong illness requiring ongoing treatment.
25. It is also undisputed that as a result of his mental illness, [A.B.] committed the most dangerous act a human being can commit against another human being, the act of murder.
26. It is undisputed that prior to the murder, [A.B.] was successfully able to mask his paranoid and psychotic behavior, and that this behavior went unnoticed by his family.
27. [A.B.] has a demonstrated history of extreme violence.
28. It is undisputed that the past history of violence is the best predictor of a future risk of violence. (Exhibit 1, Dr. Parker's deposition, page 16; Dr. Yohanna's testimony, Transcript 6/11/2010, p. 50; Dr. Porter's testimony, transcript 6/30/2010, p. 90.)
29. It is undisputed that [A.B.] has not demonstrated violent behavior in the structured setting of Madison State Hospital, while on medication and undergoing therapy.
30. He has, however, demonstrated threatening inappropriate outbursts which give his treating psychiatrist cause for concern. (Transcript 6/30/2010, pp. 100–103, 105.)
31. Although [A.B.] has not demonstrated violent behavior in the structured setting of Madison State Hospital, while on medication and undergoing therapy, none of the expert witnesses testified that he no longer poses a risk of danger to others.
32. In fact, Dr. Porter testified that [A.B.] does continue to pose a risk of dangerousness. (Transcript 6/30/2010, p. 100.)
33. [A.B.] continues to exhibit behaviors that indicate risk for harm to others, including an episode in which Dr. Porter felt threatened, an episode in which [A.B.] became verbally assaultive to the recreational therapist, and an episode in which he began to feel like he did in 2001 as a result of being denied access to a computer. (Transcript 6/30/2010, pp. 53, 100–103, 132.)
34. [A.B.] continues to exhibit residual symptoms of schizophrenia. (Transcript 6/11/2010, pp 17–18; Transcript 6/30/2010, pp. 19, 21, 88, 91, 97–98, 104–105, 114–115).
35. One of the symptoms of schizophrenia is isolation and lack of socializing. (Transcript 6/30/2010, page 104).
36. [A.B.]'s outburst in response to a knock on his door is an indication that he responds poorly to external stressors such as people knocking on his door. (Transcript 6/30/2010, page 103).
37. [A.B.]'s isolating behaviors are concerning to Dr. Porter as “hallmarks of schizophrenia.” (Transcript 6/30/2010, page 104).
38. [A.B.] is gravely disabled in that he lacks insight into his illness and exercises poor judgment with regard to stressors and triggers in the community. (Transcript, 6/30/2010, pp 36–37, 81–83; 110–111; Transcript 2/3/2011, pp. 81–82).
39. [A.B.]'s desire to return to the home and community where the murder occurred is an indication that he lacks insight with regard to stressors and potential triggers of his schizophrenia. (Transcript 6/30/2010, pp. 66–67, 72, 78, 81, 135).
40. Although [A.B.] and his family acknowledge that he suffers from schizophrenia, that this is a lifelong chronic illness, and that he will require medication for the rest of his life, they do not appreciate the significance of his illness and the potential impact of stressors...
To continue reading
Request your trial