Turner v. State

• Decision Date: 03 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. 12508,12508
• Citation: 543 S.W.2d 453
• Parties: Dan TURNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 453

543 S.W.2d 453

Dan TURNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 12508.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas,

Austin.

Nov. 3, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1976.

Larry W. Wise, Sloan & Wise, Austin, for appellant.

W. W. Bob Richardson, Asst. County Atty., Austin, for appellee.

SHANNON, Justice.

Dan Turner's indefinite commitment to the Austin State Hospital is the subject of this appeal. The question is whether the county court properly charged the jury concerning the State's burden of proof. The charge was that the State had the burden to prove each special issue by 'clear and convincing' evidence.

The proceeding originated in the county court of Travis County by the filing of a petition for indefinite commitment of Dan Turner pursuant to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5547--41 (1975). The State alleged that Turner had been under observation and treatment at the Austin State Hospital for at least sixty days pursuant to a previous temporary commitment order. Further allegations were that Turner was mentally ill and required '. . . hospitalization in a mental hospital for his own welfare and protection or for the protection of others.'

The proof was that Turner suffered a mental derangement diagnosed, 'Schizophrenia Paranoid Type.' Turner had been in and out of mental institutions many times.

The court charged the jury that the burden of proof was '. . . upon the State to prove each of the . . . special issues by clear and convincing evidence. Unless you find that the State has proved each of the . . . special issues by clear and convincing evidence, you will answer for that special issue 'No' If you find that the State has proved a Special Issue by clear and convincing evidence, you will answer that special issue 'Yes." Turner's counsel objected to the court's charge for the stated reason that the State's burden was to prove each element necessary for commitment 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

In response to the special issues the jury answered: (1) that Dan Turner was a mentally ill person, (2) that he was a mentally incompetent person, and (3) that he required hospitalization in a mental hospital for his own welfare and protection, or for the protection of others. Based upon the jury's answers to the special issues, judgment was entered committing Turner as a patient in the Austin State Hospital for an indefinite time.

Turner's important contention is that the State's burden in an indefinite commitment proceeding is to prove each element for commitment beyond a reasonable doubt. ¹

In a civil commitment proceeding the State must prove that (1) the proposed patient is mentally ill, and if so (2) that he requires hospitalization in a mental hospital for his own welfare and protection or the protection of others, and if so (3) that he is mentally incompetent. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5547--51 (1957). Neither art. 5547--51 nor any other provision of the Mental Health Code specifies the State's burden of proof. The absence of such a provision is not surprising since traditionally the determination of the proper burden of proof has been regarded as one for judicial resolution. Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 385 U .S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966).

The State's burden of proof in an Indefinite commitment proceeding is a question of major importance in Texas. The Fifth Court of Civil Appeals has written that in a Temporary commitment proceeding the State has only the burden to prove the necessary elements for temporary commitment by 'clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.' Moss v. State, 539 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Civ.App.1976, no writ). The First Court of Civil Appeals has written that in a Temporary commitment proceeding the burden of proof is not that of beyond a reasonable doubt. Greene v. State, 537 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Civ .App.1976, no writ). The Tenth Court of Civil Appeals on October 27, 1976, held that the trial court correctly charged the jury to determine the required elements for an Indefinite civil commitment by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' Powers v. State, 543 S.W.2d 194, 2 Tex.Ct.Rpt. 31 (Tex.Civ.App.1976). In Powers, the Waco Court of Civil Appeals stated that '. . . the burden of proof used by the trial court, to wit, by a 'preponderance of the evidence' did not violate due process and is a constitutional burden of proof.'

There is out-of-state authority that an Indefinite commitment for mental illness requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Ballay, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 482 F.2d 648 (1973); Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F.Supp. 1078, 1095 (E.D.Wis....