159 A.3d 824
Me.2017Background
- Henry B. was admitted to Pen Bay Medical Center after being found wandering and exhibiting self-harm and psychotic behaviors; hospital staff sought involuntary commitment.
- A District Court held a March 28, 2016 commitment hearing where Henry was represented by appointed counsel and heard testimony from hospital psychiatrists, an independent medical examiner, and family members.
- 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 required inpatient treatment; it ordered involuntary hospitalization up to 120 days.
- The Superior Court affirmed the District Court’s commitment order on appeal; Henry appealed further, arguing his counsel was ineffective and the evidence was insufficient.
- The Law Court considered whether persons in Maine involuntary commitment proceedings have a right to effective assistance of counsel and whether the Strickland standard applies.
Issues
| Issue | Henry's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individuals in involuntary commitment proceedings are entitled to effective counsel | Henry: Yes; counsel must be effective and Strickland should apply | State: Representation is required but did not contest applying Strickland | Court: Yes; effective assistance required and Strickland standard adopted |
| Standard/process for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims in commitment cases | Henry: Apply Strickland on appeal to his case | State: Proper appellate process sufficed; record review appropriate | Court: Use Strickland; follow In re M.P. procedures for record/Rule 60(b)(6) if record insufficient |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged hearsay testimony | Henry: Counsel should have objected; prejudice resulted | State: Statements were bases for expert opinion (M.R. Evid. 703) and admissible; no prejudice | Court: No ineffective assistance; failure to object was reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not independently investigating prior treatments | Henry: Counsel failed to investigate treatment history, prejudicing outcome | State: Counsel cross-examined and challenged treatment causation; medical testimony remained persuasive | Court: No ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability outcome would differ |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support involuntary commitment | Henry: Evidence insufficient to meet statutory criteria | State: Medical and examiner testimony provided clear and convincing evidence | Court: Sufficient evidence; findings supported by competent medical testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (recognizes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard applied here)
- In re M.P., 126 A.3d 718 (Me. 2015) (adopted procedures for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims in noncriminal liberty-deprivation cases)
- Theriault v. State, 125 A.3d 1163 (Me. 2015) (discusses application of Strickland in Maine)
- Levesque v. State, 664 A.2d 849 (Me. 1995) (counsel effective where no substantial defense was lost)
- In re Soriah B., 8 A.3d 1256 (Me. 2010) (expert opinion may rely on out-of-court statements under evidence rules)