Mental Health of E.M., In re
| Decision Date | 31 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-652,93-652 |
| Parties | In re the MENTAL HEALTH OF E.M., Respondent and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Robert Allison, Kalispell, for appellant.
Joseph P. Mazurek, Atty. Gen., Pamela P. Collins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Thomas J. Esch, County Atty., Valerie Wilson, Deputy County Atty., Kalispell, for respondent.
E.M. appeals from an order of the District Court for the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, committing her to a mental health facility for a period of up to ninety days. We affirm.
The issue is whether a verbal statement of a threatening nature may constitute an overt act within the meaning of § 53-21-126(2), MCA.
On September 30, 1993, the Flathead County Attorney's office filed a petition for involuntary commitment of E.M. Attached to the petition was a report prepared and signed by two mental health professionals employed by the Northwest Montana Regional Community Mental Health Center.
According to the report, E.M. was a fifty-seven-year-old widow with no known relatives. Mental health professionals evaluated her after a friend of hers reported that E.M. had stated that she planned to buy a gun and then shoot a neighbor and herself. When the mental health professionals spoke with E.M. in her home, she again stated her plan to shoot her neighbor and herself. The report further stated that E.M. appeared to be suffering from a delusional disorder and to be capable of carrying out her plan. Although E.M. had no reported previous mental illness, the mental health professionals wrote that, when interviewed, she had a "paranoid delusion evidenced by ideas that neighbor is entering [her] apt. + disturbing objects + T.V. signals" and that E.M.'s insight and judgment were "grossly impaired."
The District Court held a hearing on the petition on October 5, 1993. E.M. was present and was represented by counsel and by a court-appointed friend of respondent. A mental health professional who signed the report was the sole witness.
Although E.M. does not challenge the finding that she suffers from a mental disorder, we set forth some of the evidence on that point to place the issue on appeal in context. The mental health professional diagnosed E.M. as suffering from paranoia, a delusional disorder, and possible underlying depression. She testified that E.M. told her the neighbor had been in her apartment and had cut little holes in her long johns. When the mental health professional suggested another reasonable explanation might be that the long johns were coming apart at the seams after laundering or that there was some defect in the garment, The mental health professional also testified that E.M. stated her neighbor had been entering her apartment and smearing feces on her toilet and interfering with her television and radio reception with electronic devices.
The court denied a motion by E.M.'s attorney to dismiss the petition. It found that E.M. was seriously mentally ill and in need of treatment. It ordered that she be committed to Glacier View Hospital at her own expense for a period not to exceed ninety days. The court further provided for a conditional release to Lamplighter House upon E.M.'s compliance with the medical and treatment program and no further acts or threats of violence.
May a verbal statement of a threatening nature constitute an overt act within the meaning of § 53-21-126(2), MCA?
Montana's procedures concerning petitions for involuntary detention of a person at a mental health facility are set forth at §§ 53-21-121 through -127, MCA. Section 53-21-126(2), MCA, provides:
The standard of proof in any hearing held pursuant to this section is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to any physical facts or evidence and clear and convincing evidence as to all other matters, except that mental disorders shall be evidenced to a reasonable medical certainty. Imminent threat of self-inflicted injury or injury to others shall be evidenced by overt acts, sufficiently recent in time as to be material and relevant as to the respondent's present condition.
E.M. questions whether a verbal statement of a threatening nature is sufficient to constitute an "overt act" under the statute.
E.M.'s question has been addressed in cases previously decided by this Court. "A threat to kill is a verbal act that falls within the definition of an 'overt act' as set forth in the statute." In re Goedert (1979), 180 Mont. 484, 487, 591 P.2d 222, 224. The Court later elaborated:
The threat to kill another is a verbal overt act. It manifests the commission of a dangerous act upon oneself or another. When there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a present indication of probable ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State Of Tex. v. K.E.W
...courts from other jurisdictions have said it can include both physical acts and verbal statements. See, e.g., In re Mental. Health of E.M., 265 Mont. 211, 875 P.2d 355, 35(5-57 (1994) (holding that a verbal statement of a threatening nature can constitute an overt act within the context of ......
-
In re E.A.L.
...person that evaluated him also qualified as overt acts. D.D., 277 Mont. at 168, 920 P.2d at 975 (citing In re Mental Health of EM., 265 Mont. 211, 213, 875 P.2d 355, 356 (1994) ). Specifically, we found that D.D.'s delusional statements to the professional person about someone that was brea......
- Wiley v. City of Glendive
-
In re L.S.
...a present indication of probable physical injury likely to occur at any moment or in the immediate future, In re Mental Health of E.M., 265 Mont. 211, 213, 875 P.2d 355, 356-57 (1994). "Imminent means `certain and very near, impending[.]' ... Imminent does not mean merely `probable.' " Brya......