State v. Addington

Citation588 S.W.2d 569
Decision Date03 October 1979
Docket NumberNo. B-6597,B-6597
PartiesThe STATE of Texas, Petitioner, v. Frank O'Neal ADDINGTON, Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of Texas

James F. Hury, Dist. Atty., Gerald Burks, Asst. Dist. Atty., Galveston, for petitioner.

Martha L. Boston, Austin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the determination of the proper standard of proof to be employed to indefinitely commit an individual under the Texas Mental Health Code, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5547-1, et seq. We hold that the State must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. The judgment of the court of civil appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The State of Texas filed a petition in the probate court to have Frank O'Neal Addington indefinitely committed to a mental hospital. The probate court submitted the case on special issues, and the jury found by "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence" that Addington was mentally ill and that he required hospitalization in a hospital for his own welfare and the protection of others. Addington was accordingly committed to the Austin State Hospital.

On appeal the court of civil appeals reversed the judgment of the probate court and remanded the cause for trial. It held that the proper standard of proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt." 546 S.W.2d 105.

We granted the State's application for writ of error and reversed the court of civil appeals. We held that "preponderance of the evidence" was the proper standard in civil commitment cases. We further held that the "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence" instruction submitted by the probate court was also erroneous, but concluded that it was harmless error as to Addington since he had been committed under a standard stricter than required by law. Accordingly, the judgment of the probate court was affirmed. 557 S.W.2d 511.

Addington then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States, and that court noted probable jurisdiction. 435 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323. Vacating the judgment of this court, it held that due process required a stricter standard than the preponderance standard. The court noted that it was not constitutionally necessary to apply the "unequivocal" standard or the "reasonable doubt" standard. However, the fourteenth amendment required the employment of a standard equivalent to or greater than the "clear and convincing evidence" standard in order to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital. The case was remanded to this court to determine and define the precise burden to be assumed by the State. 435 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323.

At this time we adopt the "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof. It shall henceforth be employed in those civil proceedings brought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
441 cases
  • Hankins v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 18, 1981
    ...an intermediate standard, falling between the preponderance of the evidence standard and the reasonable doubt standard. State v. Addington, 588 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1979).Proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is defined as that degree of proof that will erase in the mind of the jury the kind of ......
  • Ellis County State Bank v. Keever
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1994
    ...1804, 1810, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979). On remand, we adopted a "clear and convincing evidence" standard in such cases. See State v. Addington, 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex.1979); In the Interest of G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex.1980) (relying on Addington, establishing that the clear and convincin......
  • In re Advanced Modular Power Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas
    • September 16, 2009
    ..."beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal proceedings. In re Amberjack Interests, 326 B.R. at 392 (citing State v. Addington, 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex.1979)). Under Texas law, exemplary damages are capped at the greater of: "(1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus ......
  • Txi Transp. Co. v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 24, 2007
    ...proceedings and the reasonable doubt standard of criminal proceedings. In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980); State v. Addington, 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex.1979). While the proof must weigh heavier than merely the greater weight of the credible evidence, there is no requirement that th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...Ass’n v. Comm. for Chiropractic Educ. , Inc ., 236 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1951, no writ), §29:2.D.4 State v. Addington , 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1979), §29:4.D.5 State v. Bonnell , 856 P.2d 1265, 8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1226 (Haw. 1993), §§28:7.A, 28:7.E State v. Carrillo , 885 ......
  • Defamation in the workplace
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part VI. Workplace torts
    • May 5, 2018
    ...as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 22 (Tex. 2002) (quoting State v. Addington , 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1979)). “Actual malice” does not mean “ill will, spite, or evil motive” in the defamation context. Rather, it is a “term of art” th......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...Ass’n v. Comm. for Chiropractic Educ. , Inc ., 236 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1951, no writ), §29:2.D.4 State v. Addington , 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1979), §29:4.D.5 State v. Bonnell , 856 P.2d 1265, 8 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1226 (Haw. 1993), §§28:7.A, 28:7.E State v. Carrillo , 885 ......
  • Defamation in the Workplace
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VI. Workplace torts
    • August 16, 2014
    ...as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.” In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 22 (Tex. 2002) (quoting State v. Addington , 588 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex. 1979)). “Actual malice” does not mean “ill will, spite, or evil motive” in the defamation context. Rather, it is a “term of art” th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT