In re Henry B.
2017 ME 72
| Me. | 2017Background
- Henry B. was admitted to Pen Bay Medical Center (PBMC) under emergency procedures and, after evaluation, PBMC sought his involuntary commitment; a District Court ordered involuntary hospitalization for up to 120 days.
- At the March 28 commitment hearing Henry was represented by appointed counsel; testimony included a PBMC psychiatrist, an independent medical examiner, and two of Henry’s sisters.
- Medical testimony described acute psychotic behavior (wandering in extreme weather, running into traffic, ingesting objects, self-harm attempts, delusions); doctors concluded inpatient treatment and specific medications were necessary.
- The District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Henry was mentally ill, posed a serious risk of harm, lacked adequate community resources, and that inpatient hospitalization and PBMC’s treatment plan were appropriate.
- Henry appealed, asserting (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the hearing and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support involuntary commitment; the Superior Court affirmed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to effective counsel in involuntary commitment proceedings | Henry: Individuals in commitment proceedings are entitled to effective assistance of counsel | State: Statutory right to counsel exists, but standard for ineffectiveness not specified | Court: Adopts Strickland standard for ineffective-assistance claims in commitment cases |
| Counsel’s failure to object to hearsay testimony | Henry: Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to doctors’ reliance on out-of-court statements | State: Expert testimony may rely on such statements under evidentiary rules | Held: No ineffective assistance — statements admissible as foundations for expert opinion and no showing of different outcome |
| Counsel’s failure to investigate prior medical treatment | Henry: Counsel should have independently investigated prior treatments that family claimed caused symptoms | State: Counsel cross-examined treating physician and independent examiner supported commitment | Held: No ineffective assistance — court weighed evidence and would not likely change outcome with further investigation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for involuntary commitment | Henry: Evidence did not meet statutory criteria (mental illness, likelihood of serious harm, lack of community resources, treatment plan) | State: Medical testimony and independent examiner support statutory findings | Held: Evidence was sufficient; findings supported by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (applying a modified Strickland framework in proceedings implicating liberty interests)
- In re Penelope W., 19 A.3d 813 (Me. 2011) (recognizing statutory right to counsel in commitment proceedings)
- In re Soriah B., 8 A.3d 1256 (Me. 2010) (expert reports may include out-of-court statements used as the basis for opinion)
- Levesque v. State, 664 A.2d 849 (Me. 1995) (counsel not ineffective where defendant not deprived of a substantial defense)
Judgment affirmed.