People v. Charles H.
950 N.E.2d 710
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Petition for involuntary admission filed July 20, 2009; trial court found respondent mentally ill and subject to involuntary admission under 405 ILCS 5/3-600 on July 24, 2009.
- Petition alleged dangerous conduct and inability to understand need for treatment, leading to hospitalization and potential deterioration without treatment.
- Witness Huang, a St. John's Hospital psychiatrist, testified respondent was loud, demanding, and threatening, and recommended long-term hospitalization.
- Respondent testified he voluntarily sought emergency room treatment, denied threats, and described his movements between Alton and Springfield.
- Trial court concluded respondent suffered from a mental illness and was reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct absent treatment, ordering commitment for up to 90 days to McFarland Mental Health Center.
- Appeal argues mootness exceptions, unconstitutional dangerous-conduct standard, incomplete dispositional report under 3-810, and failure to consider less-restrictive treatment alternatives; court ultimately vacates the commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot or fall under exceptions | Respondent relies on collateral consequences | State argues moot due to repeals and changed standards | Collateral-consequences exception applies; case not moot |
| Constitutionality of dangerous-conduct standard under 1-104.5/1-119 | Dangerous-conduct standard unconstitutional as applied | Statutory language narrowed via 1-119; Torski C. should be disfavored | Involuntary commitment vacated; dangerous-conduct standard held unconstitutional as applied |
| forfeiture of constitutional argument | Bryant allows raising constitutional issue anytime | Civil cases follow Premo rule; must raise in trial court | Court addresses issue due to substantial liberty interests; forfeiture not applied to bar review |
| Impact on dispositional reports and least-restrictive alternatives | If constitutional, other grounds may apply (3-810, least-restrictive) | Report completeness and alternatives not necessary if statute unconstitutional | Not addressed because holding on constitutionality ends inquiry; vacates order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Val Q., 396 Ill.App.3d 155 (2009) (collateral consequences may arise from involuntary admission)
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill.2d 345 (2009) (collateral consequences may attach after prior commitments)
- Torski C., 395 Ill.App.3d 1010 (2009) (dangerous conduct unconstitutionally vague; due process concerns)
- People v. Guevara, 216 Ill.2d 533 (2005) (constitutional challenges in criminal cases may be raised without waivers)
- People v. Wright, 194 Ill.2d 1 (2000) (criminal statutes challenge timing for raising issues)
- People v. Bryant, 128 Ill.2d 448 (1989) (constitutional challenge may be raised at any time in some contexts)
- Premo v. Falcone, 197 Ill.App.3d 625 (1990) (questions not raised in trial court are waived in civil cases)
- In re Joseph P., 406 Ill.App.3d 341 (2010) (liberty interests implicated by involuntary mental-health services)
- Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Saville, 397 Ill.App.3d 1003 (2009) (civil actions and issues preservation in appellate review)