IN RE KAREN PERRY, 151 A.3d 904

Karen Perry was involuntarily committed (since 2004) under the D.C. Citizens with Intellectual Disabilities Act, which authorizes commitment only for persons with at least a moderate intellectual disability.
Annual reviews included multiple psychological evaluations with mixed results: some indicating moderate cognitive impairment, others indicating only mild cognitive impairment; adaptive impairment findings also varied.
In 2012 the District moved to terminate commitment; the court ordered a District-commissioned evaluation (Dr. Byrd) diagnosing mild cognitive impairment and moderate adaptive impairment.
Perry obtained a guardian ad litem (GAL)–arranged independent evaluation by Dr. Fawcett, whose overall conclusion was mild intellectual disability despite a low full-scale IQ score she treated as an anomaly.
Perry asked for an evidentiary hearing and court-funded expert assistance to challenge the District’s experts and the selection/independence of evaluations; the magistrate denied both requests and terminated commitment; the reviewing judge affirmed.
This appeal addresses whether Perry was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and whether the court may, in its discretion, provide publicly funded expert assistance to an indigent respondent in a commitment-review proceeding.

Issue	Perry's Argument	District's Argument	Held
Right to evidentiary hearing at annual review	Statute entitles respondent to hearings with rights to testify, present and cross-examine witnesses; she requested hearing to challenge expert evidence	Procedural protections apply only to initial commitment hearings; hearing unnecessary where recent evaluation is reliable	Court held Perry had a statutory right to an evidentiary hearing on continued commitment and remanded for one
Denial of court-funded expert assistance	Needed an expert to examine or review records and assist cross-examination; requested public funds	Criminal Justice Act inapplicable; expert funding limited to criminal cases/adequate defense necessity	Court held trial court has discretion to provide expert assistance at public expense to indigent respondents in such proceedings and remanded for reconsideration
Whether magistrate properly relied on most recent evaluation to deny hearing	Recent evaluation met professional standards so no hearing needed	Same as Perry (she argued need to confront experts)	Court rejected reliance on evaluation alone to deny hearing and vacated judgment
Whether record compelled finding of moderate disability so commitment must continue	Argued evidence required continuation beyond reasonable doubt	Reviewing judge found reasonable doubt justified termination	Court found the record permitted reasonable doubt and left substantive factual resolution to the remand evidentiary hearing

In re C.L.O., 41 A.3d 502 (D.C. 2012) (standard of review for magistrate factual findings and legal errors)
In re Ty.B., 878 A.2d 1255 (D.C. 2005) (harmless-error standard for procedural errors)
White v. United States, 146 A.3d 101 (D.C. 2016) (vacatur and remand when necessary evidentiary hearing was not held)
In re Amey, 40 A.3d 902 (D.C. 2012) (civil commitment is not criminal in nature)
In re Morrow, 463 A.2d 689 (D.C. 1983) (court may provide psychiatric expert to respondent upon showing of indigence and necessity)
Jackson v. United States, 768 A.2d 580 (D.C. 2001) (Criminal Justice Act expert requests assessed under a reasonableness standard)
Williams v. United States, 310 A.2d 244 (D.C. 1973) (distinguishing appointment of expert to assist court from appointment to assist litigant)
Davis v. United States, 564 A.2d 31 (D.C. 1989) (appellate deference where facts admit more than one interpretation)