In Re Mostella

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In Re Mostella

215 S.E.2d 790, 25 N.C. App. 666, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2361

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 7, 1975

Docket7410DC1002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 215 S.E.2d 790 (In Re Mostella) 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 Mostella, 215 S.E.2d 790, 25 N.C. App. 666, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2361 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

The order of involuntary commitment was entered on 30 August 1974. Respondent entered the hospital on 3 September 1974 and was discharged on 30 September 1974. Before her appeal was perfected, however, she was returned to Women’s Prison where she is serving a 24-26 year sentence for second degree murder. We agree with the discussion and holding in In re Carter (No. 7415DC888, N. C. Court of Appeals, filed 16 April 1975), with respect to whether the questions raised on appeal are moot. We, therefore, proceed to a consideration of this case on its merits.

The question before us is whether the district court found, as required by G.S. 122-58.8 (b), “by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the respondent is mentally ill or inebriate, and is imminently dangerous to himself or others . . . . ” Upon a *667 careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that the requirements of the statute have been met.

Mary Rowe, correctional officer at Women’s Prison, testified that she had observed respondent for nine days and that she refused to eat because she thought the prison staff was trying to poison her. Respondent also refused to wear clothing or take showers. The report of the examining psychiatrist, Ralph H. Massengill, Jr., M.D., concluded that respondent was of imminent danger to herself and unable because of mental illness (schizophrenic paranoid type vs. paranoid state) “to provide for basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.” This report and testimony at the hearing support the court’s findings that respondent suffers from mental illness resulting in her refusal to eat which makes her imminently dangerous to herself.

The order of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Morris concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

The order of involuntary commitment was entered on 30 August 1974. Respondent entered the hospital on 3 September 1974 and was discharged on 30 September 1974. Before her appeal was perfected, however, she was returned to Women’s Prison where she is serving a 24-26 year sentence for second degree murder. We agree with the discussion and holding in In re Carter (No. 7415DC888, N. C. Court of Appeals, filed 16 April 1975), with respect to whether the questions raised on appeal are moot. We, therefore, proceed to a consideration of this case on its merits.

The question before us is whether the district court found, as required by G.S. 122-58.8 (b), “by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the respondent is mentally ill or inebriate, and is imminently dangerous to himself or others . . . . ” Upon a *667 careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that the requirements of the statute have been met.

Mary Rowe, correctional officer at Women’s Prison, testified that she had observed respondent for nine days and that she refused to eat because she thought the prison staff was trying to poison her. Respondent also refused to wear clothing or take showers. The report of the examining psychiatrist, Ralph H. Massengill, Jr., M.D., concluded that respondent was of imminent danger to herself and unable because of mental illness (schizophrenic paranoid type vs. paranoid state) “to provide for basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.” This report and testimony at the hearing support the court’s findings that respondent suffers from mental illness resulting in her refusal to eat which makes her imminently dangerous to herself.

The order of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.E.2d 790, 25 N.C. App. 666, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mostella-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack