Waupaca Cnty. v. G. T. H. (In re G.T.H.)
| Docket Number | 2022AP2146 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 2023 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Mental Commitment of G.T.H.: v. G. T. H., Respondent-Appellant. Waupaca County, Petitioner-Respondent, |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Waupaca County: Cir. Ct No. 2022ME4 VICKI L. CLUSSMAN, Judge. Reversed.
¶1 G.T.H. appeals an order of the circuit court extending his involuntary commitment under Wis.Stat. ch. 51 following an evidentiary hearing to the court.[2] G.T.H. argues that the court erred by admitting and taking into consideration hearsay evidence and that the error was not harmless. Specifically he contends the court erred in admitting and considering the testimony of a psychiatrist and a county crisis worker regarding alleged past incidents involving G.T.H., based on descriptions of the incidents contained in G.T.H.'s treatment records or in statements of out-of-court declarants. The County argues that this testimony was admissible either because it had informed an expert opinion or because it was not offered for its truth. As alternative arguments, the County contends that the general rule barring hearsay does not apply to commitment extension proceedings or at least does not apply in cases of this type, and that any error in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless. I conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by admitting and considering the hearsay testimony and that the County fails to show that the error was harmless. Accordingly, I reverse.
¶2 In May 2021, G.T.H. was involuntarily committed pursuant to a circuit court order. See Waupaca Cnty. v. G.T.H., No. 2021AP1490, unpublished slip op. (WI App Dec. 23, 2021). This order was reversed on appeal to this court. Id. ¶3 A few weeks after reversal of that order, on January 9, 2022, G.T.H. was placed in emergency detention. See Wis. Stat. § 51.15(1)(ar)-(b). The statement of emergency detention filed by a sheriff's deputy alleged that, while driving a vehicle, G.T.H. intentionally "hit [an] occupied vehicle." The statement further alleged that he had "been deteriorating since stopping medications over [a] 2 week span" and suffered from an "[i]nability to safety plan due to disorganized thoughts." The circuit court subsequently determined after a hearing that there was probable cause to conclude that G.T.H. was a proper subject for involuntary commitment. See Wis. Stat. § 51.20(7). The court appointed two examiners for G.T.H. See § 51.20(9). The examiners opined that G.T.H. was a proper subject for commitment, and, after a final hearing, the court issued an order committing G.T.H. for 6 months. See § 51.20(10), (13).
¶4 The County petitioned for an extension of G.T.H.'s commitment in June 2022. The circuit court appointed a single examiner, psychiatrist Marshall Bales.
¶5 G.T.H. filed a motion in limine to exclude hearsay testimony. Specifically, he made the following request:
That the County, through its expert, be prohibited from offering for its truth testimony regarding the contents of records otherwise not admissible at trial, but, used by an expert in forming an opinion. Although experts may base an opinion on hearsay under Wis.Stat. § 907.03, that statute does not transform the hearsay into admissible evidence. S.Y. v. Eau Claire Cnty., 156 Wis.2d 317, 327-28, 457 N.W.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1990), aff'd, 162 Wis.2d 320, 469 N.W.2d 836 (1991); Walworth Cnty. v. Therese B., 2003 WI.App. 223, ¶¶8-9, 267 Wis.2d 310, 671 N.W.2d 377.
(Brackets for alterations to citations omitted.)
¶6 At the beginning of the extension hearing, G.T.H. brought this motion in limine to the circuit court's attention. The court stated that it would rule on issues of evidence admissibility as they might arise during trial.
¶7 At the hearing, the County called two witnesses: Dr. Bales and Chris Lashock, a crisis worker with the County's department of health and human services.
¶8 In order to recommit G.T.H., the County bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or other under one of five statutory standards. Wis.Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)1.-2., (13)(g)3.; See Portage Cnty. v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, ¶18, 386 Wis.2d 672, 927 N.W.2d 509 (). There is no dispute in this appeal that the testimony of Dr. Bales and Lashock established that G.T.H. was mentally ill (per Bales, due to a "schizoaffective disorder") and that he was a proper subject for treatment. Therefore, in the following summary the focus is on testimony bearing on the only contested issue at trial-whether the County could meet its burden to prove dangerousness.
¶9 Dr. Bales testified that he attempted multiple times to meet with G.T.H. in person or by video call, but without success, and that he relied on "collateral sources" to complete his examination. Sources included a report completed by Bales himself from the 2021 commitment and the reports of two other examiners who were appointed following the 2022 emergency detention. As Bales began to testify about the examiners' reports from the 2022 emergency detention, G.T.H. objected to Bales "ventur[ing] into reading the findings of those reports into the record." The circuit court overruled the objection, without providing a rationale.
¶10 Dr. Bales further testified as follows. He summarized what the deputy reported in the January 2022 statement on emergency detention regarding the allegation that G.T.H. intentionally drove into an occupied vehicle. Bales further summarized other "historical[]" events "go[ing] back ten years," testifying that G.T.H. had "put his mother in fear," "set off fire alarms[,] and had put a pillow over his mother's face." Records from the mental health hospital in which G.T.H. was held for his emergency detention "indicate he becomes very manic, irritable, and threatening," in addition to describing him as repeatedly "nonsensical." One of the examiners from the initial 2022 commitment "had to abbreviate his exam due to concern for [the examiner's] safety."
¶11 Throughout this testimony by Bales, G.T.H. made multiple additional objections on hearsay grounds, and was overruled without explanation by the circuit court. Eventually, G.T.H. made a "standing objection for hearsay when there's reference to other doctor's documents," which the court "noted for the record."[3]
¶12 Dr. Bales concluded that if the treatment provided to G.T.H. Were withdrawn "he will stop his medications, stop getting mental health care, and I believe he will have to be re-detained after becoming dangerous or in danger."
¶13 Lashock testified regarding the following incidents, although he explained that he did not witness any of them but instead only heard about them from others or read about them in written statements prepared by others. In November 2020, Lashock authorized the emergency detention of G.T.H. based on an incident in which G.T.H. had allegedly set a fire in his kitchen sink and, according to a law enforcement officer, was in a "manic condition." G.T.H. held a pillow up to his mother's face, without smothering her, but in a way that made her fearful. Lashock also noted the deputy's emergency detention statement from January 2022 about the alleged vehicle-striking incident. Notes from the mental health hospital in which G.T.H. was held for his emergency detention in early 2022 stated that he was "seclud[ed]" as a safety precaution due to "being verbally aggressive" and "charg[ing] at a door."
¶14 Lashock further testified that, based on his conversations with G.T.H., G.T.H. would likely stop taking his medication if treatment were withdrawn. During past periods of decompensation following G.T.H. going off his medication, Lashock continued, G.T.H. becomes "quite manic," his "judgment is impacted," and he lacks "orient[ation] to his surroundings."
¶15 The County did not move to authenticate any exhibits or to admit any into evidence.[4] ¶16 G.T.H. did not call any witnesses. In his closing argument, he again emphasized his objections that any hearsay testimony provided by Bales or Lashock should not be relied upon as proof of incidents occurring in support of the County's case for meeting the dangerousness requirement.
¶17 The circuit court concluded that, based on the testimony of Dr. Bales and Lashock, the County had met its burden of proof for obtaining an extension of G.T.H.'s commitment. The court reasoned that, while Bales relied "on a number of different reports and things, … his opinions were all his own," including "that there was a need for extension of commitment." The court went on to explain the following regarding dangerousness, which the court identified as the only disputed element:
[T]here have been a number of incidents that were testified to that relate to dangerousness. The incident with his mother, which I agree that there was some dispute over what actually happened; the alleged hit-and-run; hitting the door; the fire; there was testimony about posturing and verbal aggression.… I will find that he is dangerous because of a substantial probability of physical harm to other individuals, as well as a substantial probability of physical harm or injury to himself … due to impaired judgment.
¶18 Based on this reasoning, the circuit court issued an order extending G.T.H.'s commitment 12 months.[5] G.T.H. appeals.
¶19 G.T.H. argues that the circuit court erred in admitting the multiple instances of...
To continue reading
Request your trial