NOTICE 2014 IL App (5th) 110495 Decision filed 05/30/14. The text of this decision may be NO. 5-11-0495 changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of IN THE the same.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________
In re JAMES W. ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of The State of Illinois, ) Randolph County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 11-MH-126 ) James W., ) Honorable ) Richard A. Brown, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE STEWART delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Goldenhersh and Spomer concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The respondent, James W., appeals from the trial court's October 13, 2011, order
concluding that he should remain subject to involuntary admission and be "hospitalized in
a Department of Human Services mental health or developmental center, which is the least
restrictive environment currently appropriate and available." We affirm.
¶2 BACKGROUND
¶3 On September 15, 2011, a petition was filed in the circuit court of Randolph County
seeking to continue the involuntary admission of the respondent in a Department of Human
1 Services mental health center pursuant to section 3-813 of the Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities Code (the Code) (405 ILCS 5/3-813 (West 2010)). Ellen
Steibel, a Chester Mental Health Center employee, alleged that the respondent was "a
person with mental illness, who because of his or her illness is reasonably expected, unless
treated on an inpatient basis, to engage in conduct placing such person or another in
physical harm or in reasonable expectation of being physically harmed" and is "a person
with mental illness, who because of his or her illness is unable to provide for his or her
basic physical need so as to guard himself or herself from serious harm without the
assistance of family or others, unless treated on an inpatient basis." The respondent was
admitted, on an involuntary basis, to the Chester Mental Health Center on December 13,
2003, from the Dixon Correctional Center. Ms. Steibel alleged that the respondent
believed he did not have a mental illness, was not always medication-compliant, exhibited
aggression towards staff and peers, and was paranoid with fixed delusions and poor insight
and judgment.
¶4 Inpatient certificates by Chester Mental Health Center staff psychiatrist Dr. T.
Casey and licensed social worker Tracy Mott were filed with the petition. Both opined
that the respondent was in immediate need of hospitalization because he was "a person
with mental illness who, because of his or her illness is unable to provide for his or her
basic physical need so as to guard himself or herself from serious harm, without the
assistance of family or others, unless treated on an inpatient basis."
¶5 Dr. Casey outlined the respondent's history. At the time of the report, the
respondent was a 57-year-old single black man who had never married. He had an 2 eighth-grade education. Since 1986 he had multiple Department of Human Services
admissions. He had been convicted and incarcerated in the Department of Corrections for
robbery, attempted murder, aggravated battery, aggravated sexual assault, possession of an
illicit substance, and parole violation. He was readmitted to the Chester Mental Health
Center in December 2003 as an involuntary admission from the Dixon Correction Center
after reaching his mandatory parole date. The respondent had been diagnosed with
chronic paranoid schizophrenia and had been treated with various antipsychotic
medications.
¶6 Dr. Casey wrote that he examined the respondent on September 7, 2011. Dr. Casey
reported that the respondent was psychotic, paranoid, and periodically aggressive, engaged
in sexually inappropriate behavior, and possessed poor insight and judgment. He noted
that the respondent was preoccupied and delusional about having syphilis. He
complained about painful urination and blood in his urine, and he demanded penicillin
shots despite negative tests. Dr. Casey wrote that the respondent did not believe he has a
mental illness and had problems with medication compliance, resulting in an increase in
positive symptoms of psychosis. Dr. Casey noted that while the respondent's last restraint
was in January 2011, he continued to be verbally abusive and periodically physically
aggressive. Dr. Casey opined that the respondent continued to need the structure and
supervision provided in a secure setting because without it he was unlikely to comply with
his medications and treatment, causing him to further decompensate and inflict physical
harm upon others.
¶7 Ms. Mott examined the respondent on September 6, 2011. In her inpatient 3 certificate, she noted that the respondent's psychiatric history dated back to age 13. She
wrote that he suffered from both paranoid and grandiose delusions. He believed that he
was "Jesus Christ Superstar" and other important religious figures. He also had a fixed
delusional belief that he had a constant urinary tract infection and needed daily doses of
antibiotics, despite repeated negative laboratory tests. Ms. Mott reported that since May
2011, the respondent had refused to take his medication on 19 occasions and, on May 31,
2011, told his therapist that he will not take his psychiatric medications when he is
released. She noted that he consistently presented with antisocial behaviors such as
stealing from his peers, harassing his peers, and having no regard for the welfare of others.
Ms. Mott opined that the respondent was in need of involuntary hospitalization because he
lacked insight into his mental illness, he demonstrated an impaired capacity for reality
testing, and he was unable to understand his need for treatment. She believed that because
of the length of time that the respondent had been hospitalized and incarcerated, he would
be unable to provide for his basic needs without extensive support in the community.
¶8 A treatment plan that was formulated on August 16, 2011, was attached to the
petition. It was signed by Dr. Casey and Wayne Womac, the respondent's coordinating
psychologist. Three problems were identified: psychiatric symptoms, verbal and physical
aggression, and inappropriate sexual behavior. The respondent was diagnosed with
chronic paranoid-type schizophrenia and an antisocial disorder. In the treatment plan it
was noted that the respondent continued to be delusional. In particular, the respondent
believed he had an undetected infection, that he was a central figure in the Old Testament,
that he had "visions of light in the sky" that communicate with him, and that he was being 4 singled out for persecution. His delusions and paranoid ideations caused him to become
violent or to defend himself with aggression and/or illegal behaviors. It was noted that
while the respondent had not been as aggressive as in the past, he continued to harass his
peers. According to his treatment team, the respondent was not compliant with
medications and therapeutic interventions.
¶9 The respondent filed a motion for an independent evaluation. On September 26,
2011, the trial court granted his motion and appointed Dr. Nageswara Vallabhaneni to
conduct the independent evaluation.
¶ 10 On October 12, 2011, a jury trial was held. The inpatient certificates and the
treatment plan were not admitted into evidence. Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that he is a
psychiatrist who works at Chester Mental Health Center as an independent contractor. He
stated that he had been a board-certified psychiatrist for 31 years. He met with the
respondent on September 29, 2011, and October 4, 2011. The respondent did not
cooperate with the full evaluation and their contacts were very brief. Dr. Vallabhaneni
explained the purpose of the evaluation to the respondent. Each time the respondent said,
"Oh, I want to go home. I want discharged" and walked away.
¶ 11 Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that he had performed evaluations on the respondent on
May 18, 2010, February 8, 2011, and March 31, 2011. In forming his opinion Dr.
Vallabhaneni testified that he based it on a review of the respondent's clinical file, his own
observations of the respondent, his past contact with the respondent, the treatment plan, Dr.
Casey's records, and the most recent psychiatric evaluation done at Chester Mental Health
Center. Dr. Vallabhaneni diagnosed the respondent with paranoid-type schizophrenia and 5 antisocial personality disorder. He stated that the respondent is delusional and believes he
suffers from syphilis despite medical evidence to the contrary. The respondent persists in
the belief, claims to have symptoms, and is so disturbed by the delusion that he cannot stop
asking for treatment for the ailment.
¶ 12 Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that he believed that the respondent is a person who,
because of his mental illness, can act out in a dangerous manner hurting himself or others.
He stated that the respondent has a long history of assaulting other patients as evidenced by
his behavior, aggression, and placement in restraints. Dr. Vallabhaneni stated that in the
respondent's last treatment plan it was reported that the respondent was involved in an
aggressive act with another patient on September 4, 2011. The respondent had been
harassing the peer, and when the peer became aggressive, the respondent fought with him.
¶ 13 Dr. Vallabhaneni opined that because the respondent is schizophrenic he is not
likely to take his medication if released from Chester Mental Health Center. He stated
that often schizophrenics do not take their medications because they believe that there is
nothing wrong with them and fear that medicine will harm them. Dr. Vallabhaneni
testified that if the respondent failed to take his medication he would have an immediate
acute relapse. His symptoms would return very quickly, he would become psychotic, and
he would be unlikely to take care of his own basic physical needs. Patients with serious
mental illness who go off medication believe they do not need to bathe, eat properly, or
sleep properly. Dr. Vallabhaneni anticipated that if released from Chester Mental Health
Center, the respondent would neglect his basic needs in every way, possibly to the point
where someone would realize he had a problem and take him back to a mental health 6 facility. Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that the respondent's failure to take his medication
would cause the respondent's symptoms to return, his condition would be worse, and the
mental deterioration would cause him to be more likely to engage in dangerous conduct.
¶ 14 Dr. Vallabhaneni opined that the respondent had not reached the mental/behavior
stability required to be transferred or discharged. Dr. Vallabhaneni felt that, due to the
respondent's serious mental disorder, the current placement in Chester Mental Health
Center was clinically justifiable and that he was an appropriate candidate for involuntary
commitment to a mental health facility within the Department of Human Services.
¶ 15 The respondent testified on his own behalf. When asked why he felt he should be
released from the Department of Human Services he replied: "Because I served my time.
I got a better life than being incarcerated." He testified that if released he planned to go to
Chicago where he felt he would be able to find employment in the construction field. He
planned to live in a group home until he could find his own apartment. He stated that his
family lives in Detroit, California, and Iowa, but he would not consider living with any of
them. The respondent testified that if released he would take his medication as prescribed.
When asked if he believed that he suffered from a mental illness he replied, "Slightly." He
testified that he would not be a danger to himself or others.
¶ 16 The following instruction was given to the jury:
"A person is subject to involuntary admission when he is
A person with mental illness and who because of his illness is reasonably
expected to engage in dangerous conduct which may include threatening behavior
or conduct that places that person or another individual in reasonable expectation of 7 being harmed;
A person with mental illness and who because of his illness is unable to
provide for his basic physical needs so as to guard himself from serious harm
without assistance of family or outside help; or
A person with mental illness who, because of the nature of his illness, is
unable to understand his need for treatment and who, if not treated, is reasonably
expected to suffer or continue to suffer mental deterioration or emotional
deterioration, or both, to the point that the person is reasonably expected to engage
in dangerous conduct.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these
propositions has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, you should find the
respondent subject to involuntary admission.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that none of these
propositions has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, you should find the
respondent not subject to involuntary admission."
¶ 17 The jury found that the respondent was subject to involuntary admission. The
verdict form was a general verdict form that stated simply, "We the jury, find the
Respondent, James W***, subject to involuntary admission." On October 13, 2011, the
trial court ordered the respondent to be hospitalized in a Department of Human Services
mental health or development center, which is the least restrictive environment currently
appropriate or available. The respondent filed a timely notice of appeal.
8 ¶ 18 ANALYSIS
¶ 19 At the trial, the jury was instructed regarding three alternative criteria necessary to
find the respondent subject to involuntary commitment. Two of these criteria were based
on outdated statutory language from section 1-119 of the Code (405 ILCS 5/1-119 (West
2008)). The first and third criteria involved "dangerous conduct," a statutory standard
found unconstitutional in In re Torski C., 395 Ill. App. 3d 1010, 1027, 918 N.E.2d 1218,
1232-33 (2009). Subsequent to In re Torski C., the legislature amended section 1-119
(Pub. Act 96-1399, § 5 (eff. July 29, 2010) (amending 405 ILCS 5/1-119 (West 2008))) to
remove any references to "dangerous conduct" and changed the commitment criteria under
section 1-119. The second criteria presented to the jury is still valid under the amended
statute, which provides that a person is subject to involuntary admission on an inpatient
basis if he or she is "[a] person with mental illness who because of his or her illness is
unable to provide for his or her basic physical needs so as to guard himself or herself from
serious harm without the assistance of family or others, unless treated on an inpatient
basis." 405 ILCS 5/1-119(2) (West 2010). The respondent argues that because the trial
court instructed the jury on unconstitutional and outdated criteria for involuntary
commitment, he was denied his right to a fair trial.
¶ 20 The respondent brings this appeal from an involuntary admission order that was to
remain in effect for 180 days from the date of the order. Because that time has expired, the
order is no longer in effect and no actual relief can be granted. Before we can address the
merits of the respondent's appeal, we must first determine whether any exception to the
mootness doctrine applies. Whether an appeal is moot presents a question of law and is 9 reviewed de novo. In re Karen E., 407 Ill. App. 3d 800, 804, 952 N.E.2d 45, 50 (2011).
There are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine in cases of involuntary admission: (1)
the collateral-consequences exception, (2) the public-interest exception, and (3) the
capable-of-repetition-yet-avoiding-review exception. In re Charles K., 405 Ill. App. 3d
1152, 1161, 943 N.E.2d 1, 8 (2010). Whether a case falls within one of the exceptions
must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Id.
¶ 21 The issue in the instant case involves whether giving the jury instructions based on a
statute that has been ruled unconstitutional and has been amended to remove the
unconstitutional language deprives the respondent of a fair trial. The public-interest
exception to the mootness doctrine applies. "The public interest exception allows a court
to consider an otherwise moot case when (1) the question presented is of a public nature;
(2) there is a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public
officers; and (3) there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question." In re Alfred
H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 355, 910 N.E.2d 74, 80 (2009). The procedures and statutory
guidelines that must be followed to order the involuntary commitment of an individual to a
mental health facility are matters of considerable public concern. In re Lance H., 402 Ill.
App. 3d 382, 385-86, 931 N.E.2d 734, 738 (2010). Thus, the issue in this case is of a
public nature.
¶ 22 Next we must examine whether there is a need for an authoritative determination
and if there is a likelihood of future recurrence of the question. The State tendered the jury
instructions, and defense counsel stated he had no objection to the instructions. The trial
court accepted the instructions without question. In entering the order for the involuntary 10 treatment of the respondent, the trial court used a preprinted form. The form had a box to
check if the person was subject to involuntary admission and three boxes to check for the
criteria for finding the respondent subject to involuntary commitment. The trial court did
not check any of the criteria. The three criteria on the preprinted form included two
containing the language "dangerous conduct." This language was found to be
unconstitutional in In re Torski C., 395 Ill. App. 3d at 1027, 918 N.E.2d at 1232-33. In
2010 the legislature amended the statute to eliminate the "dangerous conduct" language.
This became effective July 29, 2010. The order in this case was entered on October 13,
2011, two years after the decision in In re Torski C., and more than one year after the
legislature amended the statute. We believe there is a need for an authoritative
determination for future guidance, and we feel there is a likelihood of future recurrence of
the issue. Thus, we find that the issues in this case related to the use of a jury instruction
containing unconstitutional language satisfy the public-interest exception to the mootness
doctrine, and we will consider the respondent's argument.
¶ 23 In the instant case, the respondent did not raise an issue in the trial court concerning
the propriety of the jury instructions. A respondent forfeits review of a jury-instruction
error if he did not object to the instruction or offer an alternative instruction. In re Charles
K., 405 Ill. App. 3d at 1163, 943 N.E.2d at 10. At issue is whether the respondent received
a fair trial. The imposition of involuntary mental health services implicates an
individual's substantial liberty interests. In re Charles H., 409 Ill. App. 3d 1047, 1054,
950 N.E.2d 710, 716 (2011). Forfeiture is a limitation on the parties, but not the court.
Id. at 1055, 950 N.E.2d at 716. A finding that respondent has forfeited his constitutional 11 argument could result in this court affirming his involuntary commitment even though the
commitment might have been based on an unconstitutional statutory standard. Because a
substantial liberty interest is involved and forfeiture is not a limitation on the court, we
choose to address the issue raised in this appeal.
¶ 24 The respondent argues that because the trial court instructed the jury on
unconstitutional and outdated criteria for involuntary commitment, he was denied his right
to a fair trial. The respondent raises no issue with the jury instruction concerning his
ability to provide for his basic needs.
¶ 25 "Instructions convey the legal rules applicable to the evidence presented at trial and
thus guide the jury's deliberations toward a proper verdict." People v. Mohr, 228 Ill. 2d
53, 65, 885 N.E.2d 1019, 1025 (2008). Jury instructions which are not supported by the
law should not be given. Id. at 53, 885 N.E.2d at 1026. The reviewing court must
determine whether the instructions, considered together, fully and fairly announce the law
applicable to the theories of both parties. Id. "Although the giving of jury instructions is
generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, when the question is whether the jury
instructions accurately conveyed to the jury the law applicable to the case, our review is de
novo." People v. Pierce, 226 Ill. 2d 470, 475, 877 N.E.2d 408, 410 (2007).
¶ 26 In In re Charles K., a jury found the respondent to be a person subject to involuntary
admission. In re Charles K., 405 Ill. App. 3d at 1154, 943 N.E.2d at 3. On appeal, the
respondent argued that the order of commitment should be reversed because the jury was
not instructed that the State was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he
was mentally ill. Id. at 1154-55, 943 N.E.2d at 3. The respondent admitted he did not 12 object to the instruction at trial or offer an alternative instruction. Id. at 1063, 943 N.E.2d
at 10. The court found that the issue presented was of sufficient importance to justify its
review despite the respondent's forfeiture of the issue. Id. The respondent urged the
court to review the issue under a doctrine analogous to the plain-error doctrine. Id. The
court noted that while the plain-error doctrine applies to criminal and not civil cases, a
similar analysis should be applied. Id. The court found that in reviewing the matter it
must first determine whether any error occurred, and if so, whether the respondent suffered
prejudice from the error. Id. at 1164, 943 N.E.2d at 10.
¶ 27 The court found that the instructions given to the jury did not explicitly convey that
the State had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent
suffered from a mental illness. Id. at 1165-66, 943 N.E.2d at 12. It held that because the
instructions did not make clear a necessary element of the State's burden of proof, it was
error not to include an instruction explicitly conveying each and every factor that the State
was required to prove in order to support a finding that the respondent was a person subject
to involuntary admission. Id. at 1066, 943 N.E.2d at 12. The court then examined
whether the respondent was prejudiced by the error. It held that a jury instruction is
harmless if it is demonstrated that the result of the trial would not have been different had
the jury been properly instructed. Id. The court found that, given the weight of the
evidence presented at trial that respondent suffered from a mental illness, the fact that the
jury was not specifically instructed about the State's burden of proof was harmless error.
Id. at 1167, 943 N.E.2d at 13. It found that the result of the trial would not have been any
different had the jury been properly instructed. Id. 13 ¶ 28 In the instant case, the trial court erred in giving instructions based on statutory
provisions that had been found unconstitutional and had been amended to remove any
reference to "dangerous conduct." We must examine whether the respondent was
prejudiced by the error. Section 6-100 of the Code provides that "[j]udicial proceedings
conducted pursuant to this Act shall be conducted in accordance with the Civil Practice
Law, except to the extent the provisions of this Act indicate to the contrary or are
inconsistent, in which case this Act governs." 405 ILCS 5/6-100 (West 2010). Section
2-1201 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]f several grounds
of recovery are pleaded in support of the same claim, whether in the same or different
counts, an entire verdict rendered for that claim shall not be set aside or reversed for the
reason that any ground is defective, if one or more of the grounds is sufficient to sustain the
verdict." 735 ILCS 5/2-1201(d) (West 2010).
¶ 29 In the instant case, Ms. Steibel filed a petition for involuntary admission on the
grounds that the respondent was a person with a mental illness who because of his illness
was reasonably expected, unless treated on an inpatient basis, to engage in conduct placing
him or another in physical harm or in a reasonable expectation of being physically harmed
and is unable to provide for his basic physical needs so as to guard himself from serious
harm without the assistance of family or others, unless treated on an inpatient basis. The
grounds for involuntary admission pled in the petition were in accordance with section
1-119 of the Code (405 ILCS 5/1-119 (West 2010)). The jury instructions included three
grounds for the involuntary admission of the respondent. Two of those grounds were
based on parts of section 1-119 that were declared unconstitutional and violative of the 14 substantive guarantees of due process. The jury returned a general verdict that the
respondent was subject to involuntary admission. While two of the grounds presented in
the jury instructions were based on a statute ruled unconstitutional, the second ground
presented in the jury instruction was a valid ground. Because the jury returned a general
verdict and one of the theories presented was a valid ground for involuntary admission, the
verdict will be upheld if there was sufficient evidence to sustain the theory.
¶ 30 The respondent argues that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that he met the one valid criteria presented to the jury for involuntary
commitment. At a commitment hearing, the State's burden is to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the respondent is a person subject to involuntary admission. In
re Nau, 153 Ill. 2d 406, 427, 607 N.E.2d 134, 144 (1992). "The clear and convincing
standard requires proof greater than a preponderance, but not quite approaching the
criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt." In re D.T., 212 Ill. 2d 347, 362, 818
N.E.2d 1214, 1226 (2004). A reviewing court may not disturb a jury's decision unless it is
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Burgess v. Abex Corp., 311 Ill. App. 3d 900,
903, 725 N.E.2d 792, 795 (2000). A jury's decision is given respect and deference, and a
reviewing court will not invade the function of the jury and substitute its judgment for the
jury's. Hawkes v. Casino Queen, Inc., 336 Ill. App. 3d 994, 1011, 785 N.E.2d 507, 520
(2003). A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite
conclusion is clearly apparent or where the jury findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, or not
based on evidence. Id. at 1010, 785 N.E.2d at 520.
¶ 31 In the instant case, the jury was instructed that if it found, from consideration of all 15 the evidence, that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent
was a person with mental illness who because of his illness was unable to provide for his
basic physical needs so as to guard himself from serious harm without assistance of family
or outside help, it should find the respondent subject to involuntary admission. This
instruction accurately reflected the law. Section 1-119 provides, in pertinent part, that a
person is subject to involuntary commitment if the State shows he or she is:
"(2) A person with mental illness who because of his or her illness is unable
to provide for his or her basic physical needs so as to guard himself or herself from
serious harm without the assistance of family or others, unless treated on an
inpatient basis[.]" 405 ILCS 5/1-119(2) (West 2010).
¶ 32 The respondent argues that there was no evidence of any recent observation of him
to support Dr. Vallabhaneni's opinion that he was unable to take care of his basic needs.
The respondent asserts that Dr. Vallabhaneni was not his treating physician or a member of
his treatment team, and had only two brief contacts with him. The respondent argues that
based on the doctor's lack of direct, current interaction with him and the lack of direct
evidence regarding his ability to meet his basic needs, the evidence was not sufficient for
the jury to find him subject to involuntary commitment.
¶ 33 Section 3-807 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o respondent may be
found subject to involuntary admission on an inpatient or outpatient basis unless at least
one psychiatrist, clinical social worker, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner who
has examined the respondent testifies in person at the hearing." 405 ILCS 5/3-807 (West
2012). This court has held that section 3-807 "requires the examiner to attempt a personal 16 interview but that if the respondent refuses or is intentionally uncooperative, then the
statutory examination may be based on discussions with treating staff and a review of
medical records." In re David B., 367 Ill. App. 3d 1058, 1069, 857 N.E.2d 755, 764
(2006).
¶ 34 The respondent requested an independent medical evaluation, and the court granted
his motion. Dr. Vallabhaneni was appointed to evaluate the respondent. Dr.
Vallabhaneni had not treated the respondent since 2004, but was familiar with him. He
attempted to interview the respondent on September 29, 2011, and October 4, 2011. The
respondent refused to cooperate, stated that he wanted to be discharged, and then walked
away. Because the respondent was intentionally uncooperative with the physician
performing the independent medical evaluation that he requested, Dr. Vallabhaneni could
base his examination on a review of the medical records and discussions with treating staff.
¶ 35 Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that in addition to his meeting with the respondent on
September 29, 2011, and October 4, 2011, he had performed evaluations of the respondent
on May 18, 2010, February 8, 2011, and March 31, 2011. He stated that he formed his
medical diagnosis of the respondent based on his extensive history, his clinical record, and
his brief meetings with the respondent. Dr. Vallabhaneni particularly relied on the
information from Dr. Casey, the respondent's treating psychiatrist, plus his treatment plan
review conducted on September 13, 2011. Because the respondent was uncooperative
with Dr. Vallabhaneni, and Dr. Vallabhaneni based his testimony on his meetings with the
respondent and a review of the respondent's medical records, his testimony met the
requirements of section 3-807 of the Code. 17 ¶ 36 The respondent argues that the State failed to show by clear and convincing
evidence that he was unable to care for himself if released. "Generally, the inability to
care for oneself so as to guard against physical harm is found where one's illness
substantially impairs [his] thought processes, perceptions, emotional stability, behavior, or
ability to cope with life's ordinary demands." In re Tuman, 268 Ill. App. 3d 106, 112, 644
N.E.2d 56, 60 (1994). "In making such a determination, a court should consider whether a
person (1) can obtain [his] own food, shelter, or necessary medical care; (2) has a place to
live or a family to assist him; (3) is able to function in society; and (4) has an understanding
of money or a concern for it as a means of sustenance." Id.
¶ 37 Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that the respondent suffered from schizophrenia,
paranoid type, and from antisocial personality disorder. He testified that the respondent's
schizophrenia caused him to have thought disturbances and that he often believed people
were against him. Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that the respondent was delusional and had a
strong belief that he suffered from syphilis. The respondent believed he had symptoms
and demanded treatment with penicillin. Despite evidence to the contrary, the respondent
could not be convinced he did not have syphilis. Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that the
respondent's delusion was so strong that he could not stop asking for treatment for the
condition.
¶ 38 Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that the respondent had no insight into his mental illness.
When asked if he believed he was suffering from a mental illness, the respondent replied,
"Slightly." When asked on direct examination why he felt he should be released from the
Department of Human Services, the respondent replied: "Because I served my time. I got 18 a better life than being incarcerated. You know, I had skills. I do construction work. I
have–I have been working since I was 13." From this response, the jury could find that the
respondent did not understand that he was in Chester Mental Health Center for treatment of
mental illness and that this bolstered Dr. Vallabhaneni's testimony that the respondent had
little insight into his mental illness.
¶ 39 Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that he and the respondent's treating physician and
treating psychologist all felt that the respondent was mentally ill and met the criteria for
involuntary commitment. Dr. Vallabhaneni stated that the respondent was delusional and
aggressive. Dr. Vallabhaneni testified that based on the respondent's lack of insight into
his mental illness, his history of noncompliance in taking medication, and his diagnosis,
there was a very good possibility that he would not take his medication if released from
Chester Mental Health Center. He stated that if the respondent failed to take his
medication it would result in an immediate acute relapse. The respondent's symptoms
would return and his condition would be worse. Dr. Vallabhaneni stated that if the
respondent relapsed, he would be unlikely to take care of his own basic physical needs.
¶ 40 "The jury as trier of fact is in a superior position to a reviewing court to determine
the witness' credibility and weigh the evidence." Ryan v. Mobil Oil Corp., 157 Ill. App.
3d 1069, 1076, 510 N.E.2d 1162, 1166 (1987). The respondent responded to questions in
an odd and inappropriate manner. The respondent testified that he had resided at Chester
Mental Health Center for eight years. He stated that a facility up north transferred him to
Chester Mental Health Center because: "The facility up north, they evaluated me. They
said I don't have a place to stay, you know, and so they put me in a hospital, but I came with 19 $10,000 in my pocket." When the respondent was asked if he had been committed to a
different institution he replied:
"No, just the county. I was–I would be arrested for things that wasn't true, you
know. First of all, in 1975, I was arrested for armed robbery, and in front of Judge
James M. Bailey, he denied me a fair trial, and I got found guilty and he give me six
to 20. I did the six years, I get out, police drive up on me, and they put me in the
car. They accused me of being such and such and so I committed murder out of
Michigan or I'm on parole. And each time they picked me up I'm doing six years,
eight years, four years, three years, over 37 years–"
The respondent was asked if he had ever been transferred from Chester before and he
responded:
"I was going–coming back and forth to Chester from being picked up in Chicago by
officers, and they would give me an evaluation, and I would come back and forth
from Chester to the county so many times. And like Vallabhaneni said, you know,
we go back a ways, all the way to '78 sometime when I first met him."
From these responses the jury could determine that the respondent had been in the mental
health system for a number of years.
¶ 41 The respondent testified that although his family lives in Detroit, California, and
Iowa he would not consider living with a family member and instead planned to move to
Chicago if released. He stated that he had construction skills and planned to work in that
field in Chicago. He also stated that he planned to live in a group home until he could find
his own apartment. He did not offer any detail about his potential employment or 20 housing. He did not indicate that he had researched any of these choices. Based on the
respondent's demeanor, his numerous years in the mental health system, his lack of insight
into his mental illness as evidenced by his and Dr. Vallabhaneni's testimony, Dr.
Vallabhaneni's diagnosis of the respondent, and Dr. Vallabhaneni's opinion that the
respondent would not take his medication if released, it was not against the manifest weight
of the evidence for the jury to determine that the respondent was mentally ill and because
of his mental illness he was unable to provide for his basic physical needs. Because there
was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict based on the second ground presented
to it, we cannot say that the result of the trial would have been different had the jury been
properly instructed. Thus, the improper jury instructions given at the respondent's
involuntary admission trial constituted harmless error.
¶ 42 Finally, the respondent argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
He argues that his counsel failed to object at trial that the jury instructions misstated the law
and he failed to contradict the lack of evidence on his ability to take care of his basic needs.
Section 3-805 provides that "[e]very respondent alleged to be subject to involuntary
admission on an inpatient or outpatient basis shall be represented by counsel." 405 ILCS
5/3-805 (West 2010). "[T]he State's statutorily providing a respondent in an involuntary
commitment proceeding with the right to counsel implicitly includes the right to the
effective assistance of that counsel." In re Carmody, 274 Ill. App. 3d 46, 54, 653 N.E.2d
977, 983 (1995). The Strickland standard (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984)) has been adopted in mental health cases involving involuntary commitment
proceedings. In re Mark P., 402 Ill. App. 3d 173, 179, 932 N.E.2d 481, 486 (2010). 21 "Under Strickland, the respondent must establish that (1) counsel's performance was
deficient, such that the errors were so serious that counsel was not functioning as the
'counsel' contemplated by the Code; and (2) counsel's errors were so prejudicial as to
deprive her of a fair proceeding." In re Carmody, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 57, 653 N.E.2d at
985. To show prejudice, the respondent must show that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
¶ 43 As discussed, counsel's failure to object at trial to the jury instruction that misstated
the law did not prejudice the respondent. We have established that counsel's failure to
object to the misstatement of the law did not affect the outcome of the case because there
was still one valid ground for the jury to find the respondent subject to involuntary
commitment. Therefore, he suffered no prejudice because of the misstatement and has
failed to establish the second prong of the Strickland test with respect to the jury
instruction.
¶ 44 The respondent alleges that his counsel ignored the State's failure to provide any
direct evidence on how his behavior satisfied the failure-to-meet-basic-needs criterion for
commitment. He asserts that Dr. Vallabhaneni was the State's sole witness and that Dr.
Vallabhaneni had not treated him for over six years; therefore, the State's case rested on
historical facts and not his current behavior. The respondent argues that his counsel's lack
of questioning on this matter prejudiced him. Because the respondent was intentionally
uncooperative when Dr. Vallabhaneni tried to interview him, Dr. Vallabhaneni properly
based his testimony on his meetings with the respondent, the respondent's clinical record, 22 information from the respondent's treating psychiatrist, and the respondent's treatment plan
review. This included both historical and current information on the respondent. The
State did not fail to provide direct evidence of how the respondent would be unable to meet
his basic needs if released from Chester Mental Health Center. Counsel's performance
with respect to direct evidence presented by the State was not deficient and did not
prejudice the respondent.
¶ 45 The respondent argues that he need not prove the Strickland element of prejudice
because his counsel failed to subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
Where counsel entirely fails to subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing,
prejudice will be presumed. People v. Hattery, 109 Ill. 2d 449, 461-62, 488 N.E.2d 513,
517 (1985). Respondent's counsel did not fail to subject the State's case to meaningful
adversarial testing. Counsel did not concede that the respondent was subject to
involuntary commitment. Trial counsel moved for an independent evaluation of the
respondent. He questioned prospective jurors to find out any potential biases and to
ensure that the respondent would receive a fair trial. He exercised peremptory challenges
to potential jurors. He gave an opening and closing statement. He conducted
cross-examination of the State's witness, Dr. Vallabhaneni. Trial counsel conducted the
direct examination of the respondent in which he tried to elicit testimony from the
respondent to show that he was able to provide for his basic physical needs. After the
respondent referred to some of his crimes, the State attempted to ask him questions about
his criminal history. Counsel objected, and the objections were sustained. Because the
respondent's trial counsel did subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing, the 23 respondent needed to show prejudice to show his counsel was ineffective.
¶ 46 The trial court erred in giving the jury instructions that included unconstitutional
and outdated criteria for involuntary commitment. However, one of the grounds
presented to the jury for involuntary admission was valid. The respondent was not
prejudiced by the erroneous jury instructions because the jury returned a general verdict
and there was clear and convincing evidence presented to show that the respondent was
unable to care for his basic needs if not subject to involuntary commitment. The
respondent was not denied effective assistance of counsel. His counsel's failure to object
to the erroneous jury instruction did not prejudice him. Because Dr. Vallabhaneni
explained the basis of his testimony and it was based on the respondent's condition at the
time of the hearing, counsel's failure to question him about whether it rested on historical
facts and not his current state did not prejudice the respondent. Counsel did not fail to
subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing.
¶ 47 CONCLUSION
¶ 48 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Randolph County is
affirmed.
¶ 49 Affirmed.
24 2014 IL App (5th) 110495
NO. 5-11-0495
IN THE
FIFTH DISTRICT
In re JAMES W. ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of (The People of The State of Illinois, ) Randolph County. ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 11-MH-126 ) James W., ) Honorable ) Richard A. Brown, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
Opinion Filed: May 30, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________
Justices: Honorable Bruce D. Stewart, J.
Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J., and Honorable Stephen L. Spomer, J., Concur ______________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Veronique Baker, Director, Barbara A. Goeben, Staff Attorney, Illinois for Guardianship & Advocacy Commission, 4500 College Avenue, Suite 100, Appellant Alton, IL 62002 ______________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Patrick Delfino, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Kelly M. for Stacey, Staff Attorney, Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Appellee 730 East Illinois Highway 15, Suite 2, P.O. Box 2249, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 ______________________________________________________________________________