Meistrell, In re
| Decision Date | 09 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 15215-7-I,15215-7-I |
| Citation | 733 P.2d 1004,47 Wn.App. 100 |
| Parties | In re the detention of Stephen MEISTRELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Gerald Smith, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent State of Wash.
Stephen Meistrell appeals the trial court's granting of the State's petition to commit him for involuntary treatment for a period of 14 days.
Meistrell was initially detained for 72 hours pursuant to a custody authorization issued July 21, 1984, following his wife's contact with crisis outreach personnel. On July 24, 1984, a petition for 14-day involuntary treatment was filed, alleging that Meistrell represented a likelihood of serious harm to others. A hearing on the petition was held on July 25, 1984.
Meistrell's wife, Roberta, testified to both past and recent events concerning her husband's mental illness. Roberta testified that her husband was hospitalized approximately 15 months previously for approximately 2 weeks, with some follow-up therapy and medication. She also testified that prior to that hospitalization, Meistrell had bitten her on the face. Additionally, prior to the previous hospitalization, Meistrell had placed his children, then approximately 1 year and 4 years old, in the basement crawl space under the house and nailed the door to the basement shut.
Roberta further testified that approximately 2 months prior to the July 25 hearing, Meistrell left for California to stay with his sister and to look for work. He then telephoned his wife and told her that his sister had refused to feed him and that he was hungry. Roberta also described Meistrell's behavior when he returned from California the week previous to the hearing as "real hyper", and she stated that he had trouble sleeping and spoke a lot about peace and love.
Roberta testified that during one visit with the children shortly after his return, Meistrell began to chide his 5-year-old daughter for having dropped her younger brother (age 2) while holding him, causing him to lose a front tooth. Meistrell apparently held the child upside down while quoting from the Bible, telling her that she was not nice because of what she had done. Roberta testified that the conversation frightened her daughter.
Shortly after this incident, Meistrell was outside with his son and daughter playing on a homemade teeter-totter. He Roberta also testified that during one visit, Meistrell spanked his 2-year-old son for not behaving properly at the dinner table and put the child in his room. Roberta testified that her son was very upset because he was not normally treated that way.
told his daughter to stand on one side of the teeter-totter while he stood on the other, and then he abruptly jumped off, causing the child to fall. Meistrell repeated these instructions to his daughter, jumped off, and she fell again. Then Meistrell ordered both of the children onto one side, got on the other side, jumped off, and both children fell
Additionally, Roberta testified that Meistrell told her that he believed her ex-husband had hired people to follow Meistrell and beat him up. Meistrell also told Roberta that if she attempted to leave their marriage, he would seek out and kill her ex-husband. Roberta testified she was frightened by her husband's behavior.
Dr. Oscar Romero, M.D., attending psychiatric physician at Harborview Medical Center and one of the signers of the 14-day petition, testified that Meistrell told him that his wife was afraid of him. Romero indicated that Meistrell had threatened to kill his wife's ex-husband. Romero indicated, however, that he could not describe any recent overt act indicating threats by Meistrell to his wife's ex-husband. Romero testified that Meistrell had been taking prescribed lithium for manic-depressive illness, but Meistrell's lithium levels the previous day were at .46, which is below the considered therapeutic level of .60.
Dr. Thomas Hyde, a psychologist at Harborview, testified that after evaluating Meistrell, he believed that Meistrell suffered from a psychotic mental disorder, with paranoid delusions. Hyde testified he believed that Meistrell was capable of acting upon his delusions in a way which would place other persons in jeopardy.
Beverly Miller, M.S.W., testified that she evaluated Meistrell in his home on July 21, 1984. She described Meistrell as extremely tense, irritable, paranoid and delusional. Miller testified that Meistrell accused her of having Father Matthew Naumes, a Roman Catholic priest, testified that he had provided counseling to Meistrell on the day before he was detained at Harborview. Meistrell called the next day, anxious because he believed that the police would arrive to take him to Harborview based on his wife's complaint. Father Naumes and Meistrell spent several hours together talking prior to the arrival of the personnel from Harborview. Father Naumes described Meistrell as unduly nervous, but stated that he showed no violent or threatening behavior. Father Naumes testified that when the mental health professionals arrived, Meistrell was upset, but not out of control.
tapped his phone. Miller observed that Meistrell had been burning items in the fireplace on a hot day with no screen. At that time, Meistrell refused to discuss any problems he might have, and stated that he was going to return to California
James Paris, a family friend of the Meistrells, testified that, although Meistrell was a "high energy" type of person, Paris had never known his behavior to be threatening to others. Florand Kuffel testified that Meistrell stayed with him for 2 days the previous week. He further testified that Meistrell seemed eager to find work and was not threatening in any way.
The court, based on the testimony presented at the hearing, granted the petition for 14-day involuntary treatment, and ordered the commitment, which was carried out shortly thereafter.
Although Meistrell's commitment has already been served, both parties argue this case should be decided by this court. In Dunner v. McLaughlin, 100 Wash.2d 832, 676 P.2d 444 (1984), the Washington Supreme Court delineated the criteria to be considered in determining whether a case contains sufficient public interest to be decided, although technically moot. These criteria are (1) the public or private nature of the question presented; (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination which will provide future guidance to public officers; and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur.
Dunner, at 838, 676 P.2d 444. Here, both parties argue that this case involves matters of continuing and substantial public interest. The nature of a question involving involuntary commitment is a public one, since it involves government intrusion upon the liberty of an individual. At the time this case was argued, we had no prior cases discussing the burden of proof in 14-day commitment cases. Since then, In re LaBelle, 107 Wash.2d 196, 728 P.2d 138 (1986) has been decided. The Supreme Court decided LaBelle despite mootness on reasoning we believe to be applicable here. We therefore find that the Dunner criteria are met here, and this case should be decided, even though technically moot.
Meistrell argues that the State did not prove its case by a preponderance of evidence. He argues that the only evidence of a threat made was against his wife's ex-husband, and that the threat was not accompanied by a recent overt act.
RCW 71.05.240 reads in part as follows:
If a petition is filed for fourteen day involuntary treatment, the court shall hold a probable cause hearing within seventy-two hours of the initial detention of such person as determined in RCW 71.05.180, as now or hereafter amended....
At the conclusion of the probable cause hearing, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that such person, as the result of mental disorder, presents a likelihood of serious harm to others or himself, or is gravely disabled, and, after considering less restrictive alternatives to involuntary detention and treatment, finds that no such alternatives are in the best interests of such person or others, the court shall order that such person be detained for involuntary treatment not to exceed fourteen days in a facility certified to provide treatment by the department of social and health services. If the court RCW 71.05.020(3) defines "[l]ikelihood of serious harm" as:
finds that such person, as the result of a mental disorder, presents a likelihood of serious harm to others or himself, or is gravely disabled, but that treatment in a less restrictive setting than detention is in the best interest of such person or others, the court shall order an appropriate less restrictive course of treatment for not to exceed fourteen days.
(a) A substantial risk that physical harm will be inflicted by an individual upon his own person, as evidenced by threats or attempts to commit suicide or inflict physical harm on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Detention of Anderson
...the harm must be serious before detention is justified." 98 Wash.2d at 284, 654 P.2d 109. For example in In re Detention of Meistrell, 47 Wash. App. 100, 103, 107, 733 P.2d 1004 (1987), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding of a recent overt act involving the subject of th......
-
Marin v. King Cnty.
...can cure errors in admitting testimony. State v. Perez–Valdez, 172 Wash.2d 808, 818–19, 265 P.3d 853 (2011).54 Cf. In re Meistrell, 47 Wash.App. 100, 109, 733 P.2d 1004 (1987) (holding that ER 404 does not exclude prior mental history as character evidence).55 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) ;......
-
State v. Gaston
... ... In fact, ER 404(b) recognizes that ... evidence of prior acts is typically used by the State to show ... the defendant suffers from a particular character defect. The ... very purpose of ER 404 is to exclude character evidence ... In re Meistrell, 47 Wn.App. 100, 109, 733 P.2d 1004 ... (1987). In turn, ER 404(a) bars evidence of a person's ... character or a trait of character for the purpose of proving ... action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. In ... no case, regardless of its relevance or ... ...
-
State v. Gaston
...suffers from a particular character defect. The very purpose of ER 404 is to exclude character evidence. In re Meistrell, 47 Wn. App. 100, 109, 733 P.2d 1004 (1987). In turn, ER 404(a) bars evidence of a person's character or a trait of character for the purpose of proving action in conform......
-
Washington's New Violent Sexual Predator Commitment System: an Unconstitutional Law and an Unwise Policy Choice
...276, 284, 654 P.2d 109, 113 (1982) (interpreting Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.020(3)(b)). Accord In re Meistrell, 47 Wash. App. 100, 106-107, 733 P.2d 1004, 1008 (1987) (interpreting Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.020(3)(b)). The Violent Sexual Predator Commitment System requires that the person presen......