In re Bartley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In re Bartley

252 S.E.2d 553, 40 N.C. App. 218, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2608

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 6, 1979

DocketNo. 7826DC957

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 S.E.2d 553 (In re Bartley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Bartley, 252 S.E.2d 553, 40 N.C. App. 218, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2608 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

ERWIN, Judge.

The only question presented by this record is whether there was sufficient recorded evidence to support the court’s finding that respondent was imminently dangerous to herself.

G.S. 122-58.7(i) provides:

“(i) To support a commitment order, the court is required to find, by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that the respondent is mentally ill or inebriate, and imminently dangerous to himself or others, or is mentally retarded, and because of an accompanying behavior disorder, is imminently dangerous to others. The court shall record the facts which support its findings.”

This statutory mandate requires as a condition to a valid commitment order that the District Court must find, first, that respondent is mentally ill or inebriate as defined in G.S. 122-36; and second, that respondent is imminently dangerous to herself or others as defined in G.S. 122-58.2.

Respondent does not object to the entry into evidence of the two affidavits of Dr. Johnstone, although he was not presént at the proceeding, and respondent was not afforded the right, guaranteed by statute, to cross-examine all witnesses. Respondent simply contends that the court failed to record sufficient facts to [220]*220support its finding that she was imminently dangerous to herself. We agree with respondent. The direction to the court to record facts which support its findings is mandatory. See In re Koyi, 34 N.C. App. 320, 238 S.E. 2d 153 (1977); In re Hogan, 32 N.C. App. 429, 232 S.E. 2d 492 (1977); and In re Neatherly, 28 N.C. App. 659, 222 S.E. 2d 486 (1976).

Where, as here, the trial court failed to follow the requirements of the statute, the commitment order entered must be reversed.

The order appealed from is

Reversed.

Judge Mitchell concurs. Judge Martin (Robert M.) dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ERWIN, Judge.

The only question presented by this record is whether there was sufficient recorded evidence to support the court’s finding that respondent was imminently dangerous to herself.

G.S. 122-58.7(i) provides:

“(i) To support a commitment order, the court is required to find, by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that the respondent is mentally ill or inebriate, and imminently dangerous to himself or others, or is mentally retarded, and because of an accompanying behavior disorder, is imminently dangerous to others. The court shall record the facts which support its findings.”

This statutory mandate requires as a condition to a valid commitment order that the District Court must find, first, that respondent is mentally ill or inebriate as defined in G.S. 122-36; and second, that respondent is imminently dangerous to herself or others as defined in G.S. 122-58.2.

Respondent does not object to the entry into evidence of the two affidavits of Dr. Johnstone, although he was not presént at the proceeding, and respondent was not afforded the right, guaranteed by statute, to cross-examine all witnesses. Respondent simply contends that the court failed to record sufficient facts to [220]*220support its finding that she was imminently dangerous to herself. We agree with respondent. The direction to the court to record facts which support its findings is mandatory. See In re Koyi, 34 N.C. App. 320, 238 S.E. 2d 153 (1977); In re Hogan, 32 N.C. App. 429, 232 S.E. 2d 492 (1977); and In re Neatherly, 28 N.C. App. 659, 222 S.E. 2d 486 (1976).

Where, as here, the trial court failed to follow the requirements of the statute, the commitment order entered must be reversed.

The order appealed from is

Reversed.

Judge Mitchell concurs. Judge Martin (Robert M.) dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 S.E.2d 553, 40 N.C. App. 218, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bartley-ncctapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack