February 2 2010
DA 09-0469
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 16N
IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF:
V.R.,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DI 2009-37C
Honorable John C. Brown, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Elizabeth Thomas, Elizabeth Thomas, PLLC, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General, Matthew T. Cochenour,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney, Erick Kitzmiller, Deputy
County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 20, 2010
Decided: February 2, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in
this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana Reports.
¶2 This is an appeal by V.R. from the District Court’s August 11, 2009 Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law involuntarily committing V.R. to Warm Springs for 90
days. V.R. raises two issues: (1) whether the State failed to prove V.R. suffered from a
mental disorder to a reasonable medical certainty; and (2) whether the State failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that V.R. was unable to care for himself or presented a
risk to others as a result of a mental disorder. We affirm.
¶3 V.R. is a 51-year-old male, who came to police attention when he was reported to
be in public wearing only his green briefs and sandals. When the responding officer
arrived, V.R. was disheveled, smelled of vomit, was disoriented, was apparently
intoxicated and was speaking nonsensically. The responding officer suspected that V.R.
might suffer from a mental disorder and was concerned for his safety, so he transported
V.R. to the hospital for evaluation. In total, V.R. was evaluated by two different certified
mental health professionals.
¶4 The evidence before the court showed that V.R. had been previously treated for
schizophrenia. When initially examined by a mental health professional, V.R. was
2
suffering from auditory hallucinations, was lacking in social and situational awareness,
and was exhibiting signs of paranoia. There was evidence that on a regular basis V.R.
was drinking heavily to the point of intoxication (he believed that drinking alcohol was
better than drinking water), and that he had not been caring for his personal hygiene. He
had been cooking and sucking the juice out of mushrooms in his yard and he stated he
wanted to ingest their toxins. V.R. had been living in an apartment with broken glass on
the floor and occasionally appeared with blood on his hands and feet, and he had a
penchant for living in his underwear or “European-style” swimming suit. Furthermore,
while intoxicated, V.R. had thrown a bottle opener/knife at his nephew. While his
nephew’s resulting wound was superficial, the assault caused great concern. Finally,
V.R. had frightened his neighbors by banging on their doors.
¶5 The record shows that the District Court received expert testimony and other
evidence meeting the requirements of § 53-21-126(1) and (2), MCA. This evidence
demonstrated that V.R. was suffering from a mental disorder (schizophrenia) and
required commitment. Moreover, V.R. was represented by counsel and was accorded the
benefit of all of his statutory and constitutional rights.
¶6 Accordingly, based on our review of the record, we have determined to decide this
case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as
amended in 2006 that provides for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of
the briefs and the record before us that substantial evidence supports the District Court’s
findings of fact and that the District Court correctly applied the law.
¶7 Affirmed.
3
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
We concur:
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
4