Paz Cruz v. United States
165 A.3d 290
| D.C. | 2017Background
- Paz Cruz, charged with simple assault, moved under D.C. Code § 24-607(b) for treatment for chronic alcoholism in lieu of prosecution, offering to be voluntarily treated.
- Cruz proffered PSA had recommended "intensive outpatient treatment" and named APRA as a potential provider; he had not produced a medical diagnosis.
- At a status hearing (on the original trial date), defense asked for time to obtain a medical assessment; prosecutor argued civil commitment is more than outpatient and questioned whether Cruz wanted commitment.
- A PSA officer told the court PSA had recommended intensive outpatient treatment but that Cruz "said he doesn’t want it" and had not participated in treatment.
- The trial court denied Cruz’s § 24-607(b) motion, apparently relying on the PSA officer’s statement, then convicted Cruz of simple assault; sentence suspended except for five days.
- On appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals found the record inadequate to show the trial court properly exercised discretion and remanded, vacating the denial of the motion (but not the conviction unless the court again denies the motion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly exercised discretion in denying § 24-607(b) treatment request | Cruz: he seeks a civil hearing and medical assessment; willing to be treated and offered PSA recommendation and potential providers | Government: civil commitment under § 24-607 is rare; Cruz failed to show medical diagnosis or statutory prerequisites; APRA may not do civil commitments | Court: Vacated denial and remanded because record lacks sufficient factual findings to show a proper exercise of discretion |
| Whether PSA officer’s representation that defendant declined treatment could alone justify denial | Cruz: counsel disputed that Cruz refused and requested hearing to present evidence | Government: PSA representation supports denial—defendant declined treatment | Held: Court cannot infer weight given to PSA statement; denial unsupported without court explaining significance or resolving conflict |
| Whether outpatient-only recommendation makes defendant ineligible for § 24-607(b) relief | Cruz: statute permits outpatient treatment; offered outpatient option | Government: argued statute contemplates commitment beyond outpatient treatment | Held: Court noted statute allows outpatient status; denying based on outpatient recommendation would be legal error unless factual unavailability shown |
| Whether trial court should have held a hearing or allowed medical proof before denying relief | Cruz: requested time and hearing to obtain expert diagnosis and evidence | Government: argued Cruz failed to make statutory showing and waited too long; court could deny if proffer inadequate | Held: Court: denying without hearing or adequate explanation was erroneous; court must provide factual basis if it refuses to hold hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Mid-Atl. States, Inc. v. Rose, 583 A.2d 156 (D.C. 1990) (statutory permissive language commits decision to court's discretion)
- Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C. 1979) (standards for reviewing exercise of trial court discretion; court must show factual foundation)
- Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 407 A.2d 626 (D.C. 1979) (discretion must be exercised with necessary criteria and explained to permit review)
- Concord Enters., Inc. v. Binder, 710 A.2d 219 (D.C. 1998) (conclusory findings without subsidiary facts prevent appellate review)
- Henson v. United States, 122 A.3d 899 (D.C. 2015) (legal error in applying statute infects discretionary ruling)
- Dawkins v. United States, 41 A.3d 1265 (D.C. 2012) (declining to hear a proffer can deprive the court of the firm factual foundation needed to exercise discretion)