Matter of N.A., 309 P.3d 27

N.A. suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and faced a 90-day civil commitment to Montana State Hospital.
District Court ordered commitment after a full hearing finding N.A. dangerous to himself and others.
N.A. sought to choose an evaluator but could not name a preferred professional in time.
The court allowed a continuance to obtain an evaluator but N.A. failed to provide a name promptly.
N.A. actively participated in the hearing, conducting most cross-examinations and delivering closing.
Counsel Mittelstadt assisted in cross-examination, conducted direct examination of N.A., and spoke on legal matters for N.A.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did N.A.'s participation amount to standby counsel in violation of § 53-21-119, MCA?	N.A. argues participation waives counsel rights.	Mittelstadt maintained control and provided effective representation.	No; Mittelstadt controlled trial tactics and acted as effective counsel.
Was there a procedural due process violation when a written evaluator report was not filed?	N.A. claims lack of written report prejudiced him.	Report not filed did not prejudice due process; testimony sufficed.	No plain error; due process not violated.
Was the untimely jury-trial demand correctly denied?	N.A. sought a jury trial but failed to demand timely.	He had notice and opportunity; untimely under § 53-21-125, MCA.	Yes; denial was proper.
Did the District Court abuse its discretion by denying a continuance?	N.A. needed more time to secure a preferred evaluator.	Court reasonably allowed selection and did not delay the hearing unjustly.	No; continuance denial was proper.
Was counsel ineffective for permitting N.A.'s participation and related actions?	Counsel failed to protect N.A.’s interests.	Counsel acted within five-factor test from K.G.F.; no substantial ineffectiveness.	Not demonstrated; no ineffective assistance.

Halley v. State, 2008 MT 193 (Mont. 2008) (Sixth Amendment self-representation and standby-counsel guidance in civil commitments)
In re K.G.F., 2001 MT 140 (Mont. 2001) (Five-factor test for evaluating effective assistance in civil commitments)
In re J.D.L., 2008 MT 445 (Mont. 2008) (Plain-error review in civil-commitment proceedings)
In re C.R.C., 2009 MT 125 (Mont. 2009) (Ineffective-assistance framework in civil-commitment context)
Estate of Donald v. Kalispell Medical Ctr., 2011 MT 166 (Mont. 2011) (Statutory interpretation of procedural safeguards in commitment)
In re T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 (Mont. 2002) (Written-report requirements and notice considerations)
O.R.B., 2008 MT 301 (Mont. 2008) (Written reports and notice sufficiency in due process)
State v. Clary, 2012 MT 26 (Mont. 2012) (Ineffective assistance—mixed factual and legal questions)
In re E.T., 2008 MT 299 (Mont. 2008) (Procedural due process balancing in civil commitment)
In re Shennum, 210 Mont. 442 (Mont. 1984) (Due process considerations in commitment proceedings)