People v. Portus (In Re Portus)
325 Mich. App. 374
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Charles F. Portus, found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1974 for murder, has been committed to the Center for Forensic Psychiatry (CFP).
- CFP filed a continuing-order petition (MCL 330.1473) in Oct. 2016 alleging Portus remained a "person requiring treatment" and sought up to one year of continued hospitalization.
- At the Dec. 2016 hearing Portus’s counsel stipulated that he was a person requiring treatment but contested placement, asking transfer to Harbor Point Center; the probate court nevertheless ordered continued hospitalization at CFP and set an evidentiary hearing on placement standards.
- The probate court ruled there was no evidentiary standard or burden of proof for choosing the form of treatment or placement (having applied clear-and-convincing only to the initial finding), then denied transfer to Harbor Point and ordered Portus to remain at CFP "until further order of the court."
- On appeal the Court of Appeals held the probate court erred by applying no standard: the proper standard for choosing form of treatment/placement under MCL 330.1469a is preponderance of the evidence, and the proponent of a particular placement bears the burden of persuasion.
- The appellate court also found the probate court must (1) look to the statutory treatment options in MCL 330.1468/330.1469a, (2) determine whether Harbor Point meets the statutory definition of a "hospital," and (3) not order continued hospitalization "until further order of the court" contrary to MCL 330.1476 and MCL 330.2050(5).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (CFP) Argument | Respondent (Portus) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable standard of proof for choosing form of treatment/placement after finding person requiring treatment | No statutory standard applies; court may exercise discretion weighing safety and least-restrictive setting | At least preponderance; possibly clear-and-convincing; burden should remain on petitioner | Preponderance of the evidence applies to determinations under MCL 330.1469a; clear-and-convincing applies only to the initial finding that one is a "person requiring treatment." |
| Allocation of burden of persuasion for placement/setting | No burden required for petitioner to show CFP is proper placement | Petitioner must prove CFP is proper placement | Proponent of a specific form/placement bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statutory criteria for that placement are met. |
| Whether MCL 330.1468(2) (statutory list of treatment options) governs placements under a continuing-order petition (MCL 330.1473) | MCL 330.1468(2) does not apply only to §434 petitions; probate court need not follow §468(2) options | §468(2) not applicable because §1468(2) begins "for a petition filed under section 434" | Court: §468(2) options are incorporated via definition of "involuntary mental health treatment" (MCL 330.1400(f)) and thus are relevant to continuing-order petitions triggered by §1473/§1472a(4). |
| Whether Harbor Point qualifies as a "hospital" under the Mental Health Code | Harbor Point is a hospital (as characterized by CFP/prosecutor) | Portus disputes classification or argues it is an alternative/community placement | Court: probate court must apply statutory definitions and make an evidentiary determination on whether Harbor Point meets the Code’s definition of "hospital." |
| Validity of order confining respondent "until further order of the court" | Such language is permissible to ensure supervision | Contravenes statutory discharge procedures (MCL 330.1476, 330.2050(5)) | Court: ordering confinement "until further order" was improper; discharge procedures allow hospital director to discharge when patient no longer meets criteria without requiring a court order. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of Redd, 321 Mich. App. 398 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (default civil standard of preponderance applies where statute is silent)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (preponderance standard for continued confinement following insanity acquittal under due process)
- People v. McQuillan, 392 Mich. 511 (Mich. 1974) (equal commitment and release protections for insanity-acquitted defendants)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (Mich. 2015) (appellate review of sentencing for reasonableness; courts must follow statutory/legal standards)
- Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp., 432 Mich. 527 (Mich. 1989) (discussion of burden of proof vs. burden of production)