In the Matter of Mental Commitment of Ivy, No. 2008AP436 (Wis. App. 8/13/2008)
| Decision Date | 13 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008AP436,2008AP436 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Mental Commitment of Ivy S.: Manitowoc County Human Services Department, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Ivy S., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Manitowoc County: PATRICK L. WILLIS, Judge. Affirmed.
Ivy S. appeals from an order of commitment that placed her in the care and custody of the Brown County Mental Health Center, a locked inpatient facility, for six months. She contends that her commitment was the result of a trial riddled with errors, including the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence, denial of her mistrial motion, failure to sequester witnesses, and an improper special verdict form. Although Ivy's six-month commitment has ended and resolution of her appeal will have no practical legal effect, she asserts that appellate review is required to address issues likely to recur in mental health commitment hearings. The County contends that the appeal is moot and does not meet any of the accepted exceptions to the mootness doctrine. We agree with the County and affirm.
¶ 2 Ivy's mother, father, and step-mother filed a petition for examination on August 9, 2007, alleging that Ivy was acting erratically, making paranoid statements and wild accusations, and was threatening violence. The court ordered a probable cause hearing to determine Ivy's mental condition and that hearing took place on August 13. Ivy contested the allegations, but the court concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Ivy was dangerous to herself or others and ordered her detained until a final hearing could be held. Ivy demanded a jury trial.
¶ 3 Four days prior to the trial, Ivy moved the court for an in camera inspection of the hospital records of her mother, petitioner Landa C. Ivy averred that Landa's records would bear on the issue of credibility and the court's review would balance Landa's interest in confidentiality of her records with Ivy's right to put forth her defense. Ivy also moved the court for an order precluding the County from introducing any evidence of Ivy's prior commitment.
¶ 4 The court held that the records Ivy sought to have reviewed in camera would not be allowed. It held: Regarding the motion to exclude evidence of past commitments, the court stated that The court then instructed the County, "[B]efore you attempt to introduce such testimony, then, off the record, outside the presence of the jury, you are going to have to tell me what you are offering and then we'll make a determination whether or not it is admissible."
¶ 5 The County called Dr. Robert Dickens as its first witness. During Dr. Dickens' testimony, he prefaced certain remarks with "I don't know if this is admissible, from what the Judge had said before," and went on to state that Ivy had been admitted to Holy Family Hospital in 1993 and there diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He also shared that he had seen Ivy for "several court evaluations after that" and she was again admitted to Holy Family Hospital in 1998. Ivy moved for a mistrial on grounds that Dr. Dickens' testimony violated the court's order precluding references to past commitment proceedings. The court took the motion "under advisement" and withheld its ruling.
¶ 6 Dr. Dickens opined that Ivy suffered from a chronic mental illness, which he believed to be treatable; furthermore, he stated that Ivy was a danger to herself and others and cited reports from Landa that Ivy had attacked her and threatened her, that Ivy had refused to eat for some time in 1998 and lost fifty pounds because she believed her food was poisoned, and that Ivy had refused tests for her fetus's well-being while pregnant. Dr. Dickens testified that he did not believe Ivy was capable of making an informed decision about the use of medication to treat her illness.
¶ 7 Other witnesses at the trial included Dr. Toby Watson, who testified that Ivy had a mental illness that made her a moderate risk to herself, specifically with regard to her ability to find housing and food. He added that Ivy was a danger to others, but explained that this assessment was mostly related to the relationship between Ivy and her mother. Dr. Watson stated that he believed Ivy did not agree with the recommendation that she take medication because she wanted to take advantage of alternative treatment.
¶ 8 Ivy's mother, Landa, also testified. She is designated as guardian of Ivy's person and is also guardian of Ivy's daughter. Landa described physical altercations with Ivy as well as Ivy's threat to kill her, which prompted Landa to move to her son's house. Ivy's father, Thomas, testified that Ivy had never threatened him with physical violence, but that he believed she had harmed herself in the past. He believed a commitment order was the only way Ivy would receive the treatment he felt she needed.
¶ 9 At the close of this testimony, the County sought permission for Landa and Thomas to remain in the courtroom for Ivy's testimony. The court denied the request, noting that they could be recalled as witnesses.
¶ 10 The County rested its case and the court took up Ivy's mistrial motion. The court denied the motion, stating that the controversial comments had come early in the trial and that the potential effect on the jury was minimal. The trial resumed and several witnesses testified in Ivy's defense. One witness offered testimony to discredit Landa's veracity. Others testified as to Ivy's ability to care for herself even without medication. When it came time for Ivy to take the stand, the County renewed its request that Landa and Thomas be allowed in the courtroom. Ivy again objected, but the court permitted Landa and Thomas to remain, with the understanding that they would not be recalled to testify.
¶ 11 Ivy testified at length to counter the allegations in the petition. She addressed her relationship with Landa, specifically denying the allegation that she threatened violence against Landa. She challenged Landa's credibility by asserting that Landa "[e]xaggerates," "makes things up" and is constantly critical of Ivy. She described an incident that resulted in Ivy's removal from the home in June 2007. In the incident report, defense exhibit 4, Ivy identified Landa as the aggressor in the confrontation. She explained that the reason she kept returning to Landa's home, despite the tumultuous environment, was because Landa was her guardian. Ivy acknowledged that she had a "need for counseling," but contested the diagnosis offered by Dr. Dickens.
¶ 12 At the close of Ivy's testimony, the court excused the jury and the parties prepared for final arguments and jury instructions. The court informed the parties of the instructions it intended to give the jury and both parties indicated they had no objection to the pattern instructions. In particular, the court advised that it would be using jury instructions on the issue of dangerousness "that relate to [WIS. STAT. §] 51.20(1)2.a. and (1)2.c." The parties indicated that this would be acceptable.
¶ 13 The special verdict asked three questions: (1) Is Ivy mentally ill? (2) Is Ivy dangerous to herself or to others? (3) Is Ivy a proper subject for treatment? The jury answered all three in the affirmative. On August 29, 2007, the circuit court ordered Ivy committed for six months under WIS. STAT. § 51.20. Ivy appeals.2
¶ 14 The County asserts that Ivy's appeal is entirely moot. Ivy's commitment order expired months ago and she is no longer in the County's custody. An appeal is moot if a decision will have no practical legal impact on the underlying controversy. See State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Vill. Bd., 173 Wis. 2d 553, 568, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993). However, there are exceptions to that general rule. For example, an appellate court will review an otherwise moot appeal on the merits if the issues presented are of great public importance, where the constitutionality of a statute is involved, where the situation is likely to recur and guidance for the trial courts is essential, where the issue is likely to recur and a decision is required to avoid future uncertainty, or when an issue is likely to recur and yet evade appellate review. See State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶14, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341.
¶ 15 Ivy insists that her appeal should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial