In the Matter of Colton P., 242 Ariz. 437

In April 2016 Pineview Hospital's medical director petitioned for court-ordered evaluations and treatment for Colton P., alleging he was dangerous to himself/others and persistently/acyutely disabled.
After evaluation, physician affidavits described an impulse disorder, poor judgment/insight, two childhood traumatic brain injuries, a prior suicide attempt, and incidents of violence and running into traffic; the court ordered combined inpatient/outpatient treatment (≤1 year; inpatient ≤180 days).
An evidentiary hearing occurred April 28; the court admitted physician affidavits and an Individual Service Plan (ISP) and directed a digital recording of the hearing.
The digital recording proved inaudible; no stenographic transcript existed. Appellant sought remand for a new hearing; this court stayed the appeal and directed the superior court to reconstruct the record under ARCAP 11.
At the reconstruction hearing, the superior court and counsel confirmed that two lay acquaintances (Devon Lawrence and Barbara Stone) and physician witnesses had testified at the original hearing; trial counsel stated he had no objection and agreed who testified but did not supplement the record with recollections of the witnesses’ testimony.
Appellant appealed, arguing the statutory requirement of testimony from two acquaintance witnesses (A.R.S. § 36-539(B)) was not substantively satisfied because no transcript of their testimony exists; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory requirement that two acquaintance witnesses testify was not satisfied because no transcript exists	Appellant: No transcript of the acquaintance witnesses’ testimony; thus court did not substantively comply with A.R.S. § 36-539(B)	Appellee: Record was properly reconstructed under ARCAP 11; parties and court confirmed the two lay witnesses testified and trial counsel had no objection or supplementation	Court: Affirmed—reconstructed record sufficed and Appellant bore burden to ensure transcript/reconstruction; statutory requirement met

Rodriguez v. Williams, 104 Ariz. 280 (1969) (when record is destroyed/unavailable, appeal court may remand to superior court to reconstruct the record)
In re MH 2007-001236, 220 Ariz. 160 (App. 2008) (statutory requirements for civil commitment are strictly construed to protect liberty interests)
Blain v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213 (App. 2010) (appellant bears burden to ensure the record on appeal includes all necessary transcripts/documents)
Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340 (App. 1984) (appellate courts prefer deciding cases on the merits rather than procedural deficiencies)