*1 category logically only could disposition be based on at 409. Our of issue is3 dis- the individual positive circumstances and appeal condi- and we do not con- Tex.R.App. particular patient. tions each There any sider other issues. See P. an analytical gap between the referenced 47.1.
testimony and the conclusion that Anita judgment of the trial court is re- would surgery have avoided to a reason- versed. Judgment is rendered that able medical probability. See Gammill v. nothing. Warrens take Chevrolet, Inc., Jack Williams 972 S.W.2d 713, (Tex.1998); Bradley, 879 S.W.2d
at 956-57. The testimony referenced legally support sufficient evidence to
finding that to a proba- reasonable medical
bility Anita would have surgery by avoided Kegel’s. use sum, Dr. Rosenfeld other CAMPBELL, Nathan Dale Appellant, physicians agreed that each must v. be individually. considered Dr. Rosenfeld was unable to set out criteria which Texas, Appellee. The STATE of be identify could used patients who 14-02-00955-CV, Nos. 14-02-00956-CV. would not improved be or cured by Ke- gel’s, patients such as with muscles which Appeals Texas, Court of simply strengthened could not be by the (14th Dist.). Houston exercises. The evidence showed that sta July 2003. tistically, Kegel’s well-done would cure patients some surgery SUI so that
would not necessary; be would not im
prove patients some all surgery at still
would necessary; im would
prove symptoms patients SUI in some degree
some and for some time duration
which case surgery might might not be
necessary, depending degree on the im
provement, improvement whether temporary permanent. gen Such
eral legally statistical studies are suffi that,
cient evidence to a reasonable medi probability,
cal Anita’s SUI would have improved by
been cured Kegel’s surgery
extent that would not have been Gammill,
necessary. See 972 S.W.2d at
728; Havner, S.W.2d
Because the is legally evidence insuffi- that,
cient to a reason-
able medical probability, Anita would have
avoided surgery by Kegel’s, the use of Ellis,
issue 3 is sustained. See 971 S.W.2d *4 Leitner, Houston, appel- for M.
James lant. Houston, appellee. Keating,
Kevin P. Justice consists Chief Panel BRISTER, and Senior FOWLER Justice Chief Justice MURPHY.* neous criminal offenses without affording of, appebant discovery on, notice or an
MAJORITY OPINION
opportunity
against,
alleged
defend
(3)
offenses;
letting the
relitigate
FOWLER,
WANDA McKEE
Justice.
extraneous offenses when they were
appeal
This is an
from an order submit-
(4)
by
barred
estoppel;
cobateral
telling
ting
Campbell
Nathan Dale
(appellant) to
it would
if appebant
decide
would
the care
Hospital
of Kerrvllle State
outpa-
ordered
extended
extended mental health services.1 For five
treatment;
abowing
tient
years, appellant has
been a
of a
jury to
questions
inpa-
answer the
both
hospital
state mental
as a
result of vio-
sup-
tient and
treatment.
In a
lent
crime
but
acquitted
committed
brief,
plemental
appebant argues that the
of insanity.
appeal
reason of
This
rais-
evidence was legaby
insufficient to
interesting
es
important
pa-
issues for
jury’s
verdict because the State was
appebant
tients like
who are ordered to a
to,
not,
required
prove
but did
he had
mental health institution after
com-
having
*5
sixty
served at least
consecutive
in
days
a
a
Appebant
mitted violent crime.
has filed
hospital
under a vabd court order.
us,
two briefs with
both raising significant
below,
explain
As we
we
ab
overrule
of
legal
appeal
issues. Part of
complains
appebant’s
and
issues
we affirm.
that he
improperly
was
harmed because
A. FACTS
jury
heard the detabs of the brutal
insane,
he
crime
committed whbe
and that
1997,
April
In
at the close of
bench
those
jury
detabs would distract the
from
Court,
trial before the 180th District
the narrow issue before them: Did his
appebant
gubty by
court found
“not
present condition warrant continued com-
reason of
of
insanity”
ag
of
offenses
mitment? A
part
second
of
com-
his brief
gravated
aggravated kidnap
and
assault
plains about numerous extraneous offenses ping
girlfriend.
Pursuant
his former
to
discussed in
history
his medical
that were
section 46.03 of
of Crimi
the Texas Code
made
jury
known to the
any sepa-
without
Procedure,
nal
appebant
automatically
was
rate proof
they
actuaby occurred.
facility
health
committed
a mental
complaint
The other main
relates to the
diagnosed
Appebant,
twelve
months.
charge,
equahy important
and raises the
disorder,
bipolar
in psychiatric
has been
question whether a
in
type
this
fadlity
year,
since
Each
in
time.
case
can order a
to an extended May, the trial court has
com
reviewed the
stay in a mental health institution without
trial,
mitment
a jury
in
and continued it.
a jury finding supporting the order.
Appebant
appealed
his recommitment
Specificaby, appebant complains
previous
Campbell
See
v.
three
times.
(1)
fobowing
State,
original
(Tex.App.-Houston
his
brief:
telling
793
State,
violating
thus
prosecutions,
(Tex.App.-Houston
68
747
successive
S.W.3d
his
2001),
jeopardy.
from
right
176
to be free
double
aff'd, 86
[14th Dist.]
S.W.3d
(Tex.2002);
State,
v.
Campbell
2002 WL
The
Amendment
to the United
Fifth
(Tex.App.-Houston
Dist.]
[14th
no
provides
per-
States Constitution
(motion
2002,
11,
April
pet.)
publish
no
same
subject
son
for the
offense
shall “be
granted).
jeopardy
of life or limb.”
put
be twice
Const,
This fundamental
U.S.
amend. V.
2002,
May
appel-
found that
prevent
interpreted to
doctrine has been
that,
ill
mentally
lant
a result
was
as
(1)
prosecution for the same of-
a second
illness,
suffering
he was
se-
his mental
(2)
prosecu-
after
a second
acquittal,
fense
mental, emotional, or
vere and abnormal
conviction,
tion for the
offense after
same
distress,
physical
phys-
and mental and
for the same
multiple punishments
ability
independently
ical
to function
had
Pearce,
offense. North Carolina v.
The
substantially
deteriorated.
also
711,
2072,
23 L.Ed.2d
U.S.
89 S.Ct.
incapable
appellant
making
a ra-
found
(1969);
State, 87
Bailey
v.
S.W.3d
treatment,
regarding
tional
decision
However,
(Tex.Crim.App.2002).
was
expected
found that his condition
implicated
doctrine is not
in this case be-
ninety
than
days.
continue for more
The
cause,
below,
as
is not
explain
the State
find that
refused
repeatedly prosecuting appellant
seek-
likely to
harm
cause serious
to himself or
ing
impose
on him.
punishment
31, 2002,
May
others. On
the trial court
ordered
committed to extended
our
our decision is
con-
lynchpin to
*6
inpatient mental health services twelve
hearings,
clusion that
and
recommitment
appeal
months. This
followed.
hearings,
judgment following
are
prosecution
pun-
a
a
neither
criminal
nor
B. DISCUSSION OF EVIDENTIA-
with,
begin
ishment. To
a commitment
RY ISSUES
a civil matter.
under Article 46.03 is
See
Original
Admission
Details of
State,
v.
180
Campbell
85 S.W.3d
Aggravated
Aggravated
1996
Assault and
(Tex.2002).
year, the trial court con-
Each
Kidnapping.
ap-
whether
hearing
ducts
to determine
Appellant first claims that the details of pellant
meet the criteria for
“continues to
aggravated
the 1996
assault and aggravat-
involuntary commitment.” Tex.Code CRiM.
(Vernon
4(d)(5)
ed
his
kidnapping
girlfriend
46.03, §
should
art.
Ann.
PROc.
inadmissible
the annual recommitment
only
can
Supp.2002). The court
recommit
hearings.
gives
He
four
for this:
reasons
if
appellant
it finds that he meets one of
(1)
(2)
it
jeopardy
violates
double
col-
specified
the criteria
commitment
(3)
estoppel,
lateral
and is
irrelevant and Mental
section 574.035. See
Health Code
Safety
§
unfairly prejudicial. We
on all
disagree
574.035
Tex. Health &
Code Ann.
(Vernon
issues.
These criteria relate
Supp.2002).
appellant’s
dangerousness
both
present
jeopardy.
a. Double
appellant’s
to himself
and others
year Appellant’s
See id.
present
Each
recommit
mental condition.
jury
revisit
hearing,
require
has introduced
criteria do not
ment
original
more
original
aggravated
crime to decide one
time
evidence of
Appellant
and assault.
committed because
kidnapping
claims
should be
prior
rehashing
of his
violent acts. When
grue
that this continual
of the
crimes,
revisits his
the crimes are
original
details
his 1996 offenses amounts
some
background
used as additional
original
information
assault and kidnapping, as
aswell
to assess
ex-
improvement;
appellant’s prior
all of
provide
history,
plain
point in
behavioral,
more detail
under
gauge
below
benchmark to
his
emo-
tional,
Thus,
his other issues.
and psychological
recommitment
de-
progress or
order is based on
cline.
It
factors that measure the
this historical psychological
provides
patient’s
benchmark that
opposed
past—
current —as
basis for his
condition,
psychologists
psychiatrists
not
additional ad-
assess
judication
current behavior —has the
original
And,
patient
im-
offense.
as
proved or is
earlier,
merely repeating past
be-
stated
the proceeding is civil.
State,
example,
havior? For
Campbell
every
v.
one of the
Additionally, recurring nature of the estoppel part subsequent or all of a bars hearing two-step and the prosecution, employ annual reference to the courts original kidnapping analysis following: assault and they do not in which ask the (1) hearing transform the “necessarily from civil one to a what facts decided” were (2) punitive or retaliatory one. As we in the do proceeding; men- first those explain tioned specifically “necessarily above and more decided” facts es constitute issues, under of appellant’s one later sential in the elements of the offense sec finds clear Taylor, 101 health services parte Ex See ond trial. (en following: of the convincing evidence (Tex.Crim.App.2002) S.W.3d banc). ill; (1) must be mentally The entire trial record is proposed patient fact, precisely to what examined determine (2) illness the as of that mental a result facts, necessari combination proposed patient: ly decided. id. at 441. See (A) harm likely cause serious is himself; identify specific Appellant does (B) harm likely to cause serious is the State is at- fact or facts believes others; or he does not tempting relitigate, (C) is: essential explain how facts constitute (i) suffering in the severe and abnormal of the “offense second elements emotional, mental, no au- dis- physical trial.” also has offered estoppel applies tress; thority that collateral hearings bar subsequent recommitment (ii) experiencing substantial mental patient’s original of the crime. details pro- of the deterioration physical estoppel to hold that collateral We decline in- posed patient’s ability to function applies here. is dependently, which exhibited inability, for except proposed patient’s Relevance.
c. indigence, provide reasons of needs, in- patient’s proposed basic Next, his appellant contends that food, health, or cluding clothing, safe- actions, insane, criminally while are not ty; and under findings required relevant (iii) to make rational Code, unable Health section 574.035 Mental or not as to whether informed decision unfairly preju and that their admission treatment; submit dicial. See Tex.R. Evid. 403. He argues throughout hearing (3) proposed patient’s condition purposefully emphasized the brutal expected than to continue more crimes nature of his to inflame the days; and against him and to assure return to received proposed inpatient, outpatient, rather than treat inpatient mental health court-ordered ment. We review a trial court’s decision to or under under this subtitle services admit or exclude evidence for abuse of Proce- Article Code Criminal v. City See Brownsville Al *8 discretion. dure, days 60 consecutive for at least of (Tex.1995). varado, 897 S.W.2d 12 months. during preceding But, appellant’s if crim before consider Safety Ann. & Code Tex Health inal acts are relevant to recommitment 574.035(a).2 § it hearing, important we think to revisit convincing under sub- To clear and prove what the State must re- (a), must include ex- the evidence section commitment. of a recent pert testimony and evidence 574.035(a) continuing pattern of behav- provides overt act or a that a
Section (1) confirm the likelihood that tends to may proposed patient to receive ior order proposed of harm the inpatient mental serious court-ordered extended See Tex. required health services. 2. is not to make the tended mental 574.035(d). (a)(4) proposed patient § under subsection if Code Ann. Safety & Health already subject to for ex- has been an order (2) others, or proposed patient’s ry, experts dis- cannot fully assess his cur- tress and proposed psychological the deterioration rent According of status. to at patient’s ability expert, appellant’s prior to function. least one See Tex. violent Safety 574.035(c). § acts reflect how he can react to his ill- Health & Code Ann. bipolar disorder —when Evidence if it he “any is relevant us- tenden- ness— tools, ing various such as cy medication and make fact that consequence is of And, counseling, to control the illness. to the determination of the action more according testimony, the details of the probable probable or less than it would be crime allow the doctors and the without the evidence.” Tex.R. Evid. appellant adequately assess whether was disagree appellant We prior that his accepted processing the event and has re- violent acts are not jury’s relevant to the sponsibility it. some refer- Without assessment of the section 574.035 factors. crime, ence to the details of the which The state of an individual’s emo appellant denying, them still was psychological tional and well-being—or would be difficult for the doctors to discuss lack person thereof —and whether improved adequately appellant whether should remain committed because of a Otherwise, year. over the would illness, requires snap more than a testimony rely have the doctor’s year life; shot of a single person’s in a it is appellant aspects of the denied certain inquiry. broad com involuntary Moreover, apparently crime. crime case, mitment we ask whether person can indicates the extent which (1) is mentally ill and help protect needs if danger be a to others he does con- himself or others or to maintain his Every trol his mental psychologi- illness. Especially person health. when a was cal evaluation into evidence introduced criminally violent while insane and has summary appellant’s contained a been committed for years, focusing only on had, offenses he a min- and the fact that at years provides most recent of life no imum, and at- girlfriend assaulted his frame To reference. determine one sock- tempted pull eyes out their her well, who has been ill mentally is now or at psychological ets. Even the assessment least protect able to others maintain he by appellant offered indicated that had health, his psychological history is neces July 1996 and girlfriend “assaulted his sary. attempted eyes.”3 her to remove earlier, original
As we noted assault trial, ap- At experts some testified kidnapping provide a benchmark pellant important partic- deny continued to experts which jury— therefore the crime; example, ulars —and can measure emotional and committed has denied that the crime psychological progress. Without first with experts, knife. To some looking psychological important.4 histo- 3. The following killing. evaluation also included the *9 really cause it was a he was demon separate Campbell details a section: Mr. her turned stated that as face blue, eyes began bulge, her which he to Campbell Mr. that was a stated he in rela- demon, thought was the of the location so tionship girlfriend with his for about one eyes. attempted gouge he to out her a years. According Camp- half to Mr. bell, assault, day that, the he the heard his disputes proposition 4. the if he crime, neighbor's father's telling next door voice particulars denies the he has not girlfriend. Campbell him to his improved. argument, kill Mr. To support this he her, choking points expert’s testimony stated that he remembers be- at least one a
797
jury
un-
the
was
appellant argues,
quence,
find this evidence relevant
We
trial,
gave
him and
the
fairly prejudiced against
function at the
which was
jury’s sole
disagree.
mentally
was
ill and
it wanted. We
if
State the result
decide
court-ordered extend-
met the criteria for
matter,
As
the State
a threshold
ed mental health services.
com
this
argues
waived
unfairly
d.
Inadmissible
because
his
evidence6
by introducing
own
plaint
prejudicial?
very same details
containing many of the
Ethington
See
complains.
he now
which
the evi
determined
Having
(Tex.
State,
854, 858-60
v.
819 S.W.2d
relevant,
now consider
dence was
we must
v. Yamaha Mo
Crim.App.1991); Mclnnes
it
be excluded because it
whether
should
U.S.A.,
185,
188
Corp.,
tor
S.W.2d
408,
Rule
unfairly prejudicial.
was
Under
(Tex.1984).
appel
if
But even
agree.
We
may
excluded
its
relevant evidence
be
complaint,
had
this
he
lant
not waived
probative
substantially outweighed
value
balancing
the Rule
test.
would still fail
danger
prejudice,
the
unfair
confu
earlier,
As
all of the evidence of
issues,
stated
misleading
jury.
the
sion of the
highly
crime was
relevant
objects
party
Tex.R. Evid. 408. When a
himself
dangerousness
his
the issues of
403, a
court must conduct
under Rule
others,
status, and
treat
his
his
test, weighing
danger
balancing
risk of unfair
progress.
any
ment
And
prejudice
probative
value of
against
against
measured
this
prejudice must be
v.
Waldrep
Employers
the evidence.
Tex.
Ass’n,
high degree of relevance.
(Tex.App.
Ins.
S.W.3d
denied).
so,
doing
pet.
Austin
we
prejudicial effect the
any
To examine
the entire
Alva
must review
record. See
look
jury,
on the
we need not
evidence had
rado,
To
carefully relevance, monitored. that same high degree Given the as effect, well as little evidence of psychologist prejudicial appellant doubted whether appellant pro- has failed to that the show would to improve continue if he were bative of the was value details substantial- placed in an pro- treatment ly by outweighed any prejudicial effect. gram, many because too outside variables short, uncertainty would create tension and In that we appel- conclude that none of complaints lant’s probably appellant’s jeopardy, would collat- cause mental —double relevance, estoppel, preju- eral and unfair state deteriorate. dice—are reason to exclude evidence of appellant’s in July crimes of 1996. We jury’s response The this testi overrule first issue. evidence, and mony, clearly all shows that it was unfairly prejudiced against 2. Admission of Extraneous Of- prejudice the defendant. Unfair fenses. means an tendency “undue to suggest decision on an issue, his second con basis, improper commonly, though not nec by tends the trial court improperly erred essarily, an emotional one.” Montgomery allowing allegations “show State, 372, (Tex.Crim. v. 810 S.W.2d many criminal alleged extraneous offenses
App.1990)
Jamil,
v.
(quoting United States
ly having
by appellant
been committed
(2nd
638,
Cir.1983));
F.2d
n withoutthe
644-645
necessity
proving
the same
advisory
committee’s note.
Fed.R.Evid.
by any legal
denying appel
standard” and
Here, however, it
apparent
that the
lant “notice of said extraneous offenses or
was able to
upon
render a verdict based
ability
against
to defend
the same ei
expert testimony
by considering
during
and
all of
ther before or
trial
denying all
at discovery.” Appellant’s
efforts
argu
the circumstances of
mental
ments
this section are somewhat dis
health.
jury’s
special
answers to the
jointed
follow; however,
and difficult to
especially its
that ap
conclusion
issues—
arguments
will address his
as we under
pellant was not a
to himself or
danger
stand them.
others —reflects
that listened to all
testimony
responded
in a
rea
Appellant
argues
primarily
sonable manner
with that
consistent
testi
deprived
that was
he
of a fair
because
mony.
exactly
objectivity
It is
this
that
for,
prepare
he was unable to
or defend
refutes the claim that
was in
against, the introduction of extraneous acts
flamed
that
rendered a verdict on an
or offenses reflected in his medical reco
improper
appellant’s complaints
basis.
rds.7 Most of
are
others,
argues,
conclusory
Appellant
though
also
fash-
ous to himself and
even
he did
ion,
background
illness).
that the introduction of
in-
not suffer from
He also
may
personality
formation that
relate
testifying
contends that
stated
all
doctors
confusing
prejudicial,
disorder is
and is
appellant's
mental illness was in remis-
not relevant
to the
he
issue
whether
By
argument, appellant appears
sion.
this
currently mentally
argues
ill.
findings
suggest
jury’s
were based
may
he
he
be committed because
has a
personality
the existence of a
disorder rather
personality
danger-
disorder that makes him
than a mental illness. But
does not
ous,
Louisiana,
71,
citing
v.
U.S.
Foucha
support
argument
with citations
112 S.Ct.
Mr.
should have been
indi-
drug possession
age
15. Records
an
to dis-
allegation
opportunity
and
cific
in he and his
cate this arrest resulted
discovery. Appellant
prove
through
being
to attend sub-
mother
ordered
com-
specific evidentiary
does not raise
File informa-
abuse education.
evidence,
stance
but
the admitted
plaints about
pattern
a
of antisocial
tion also indicates
argues broadly that the State was allowed
arrest,
behavior that did
lead to
trafficker, a
drug
him
“a
portray
as
theft,
driving,
drug
and
including
drunk
driver,
con-
drug possessor,
a
drunk
trafficking.
crimes,
a
in
criminal
spirator
[and]
other
prove
a
being required
assessment also included ref-
thinker” without
Dr. Suire’s
standard;
in
a
Bru-
he
by
erence
an incident which Ms.
allegations
legal
some
near a
appellant standing
observed
deprived
process.
baker
him of due
claims this
smoking
who
in
group
patients
However,
authority,
were
nor
provides no
are
he
hospital policy, and concluded
violation of
any,
his assertion
we aware of
as a
appellant “appeared
serving
to be
that
background information
historical or
that
patients.” Appellant
for these
also
lookout
records is admissible
drawn from medical
complains about the admission of his own
by
legal
some
standard.
only
proven
when
State,
testimony,
by
regarding
elicited
the trial court
Even if we were to assume
and sexual activi-
past
his
substance abuse
evi-
admitting
the referenced
erred
ty
psychi-
women while confined
a
dence,
appellant has not demonstrated
facility.8
atric
magnitude
of such
he
errors were
they
or that
hearing
a fair
complains
was denied
Appellant
that the trial court
court to render
probably caused the
ignored
or
and the State either denied
Tex.R.App.
improper judgment. See
result,
P.
And,
discovery requests.
as a
he
44.1(a).10
investigate
was unable to
and defend
Therefore,
discovery,
general motion for
findings.
appellant is
to the extent
making
argument,
under Texas Rules of
such an
it is waived.
notice for disclosures
request
404 and
Evidence
Although appellant complains
8.
he ob-
argue
Brady
does not
materials.
psycho-
jected to the admission of four of the
spe-
any
denying
court erred in
State,
logical
introduced
assessments
identify
discovery requests, and does not
cific
that "these documents were
and contends
he
contends
wanted
what information he
and testified to in front of the
then offered
it was relevant
material.
obtain or how
occasions,”
identify
many
does
jury on
he
specific
contained
other
extraneous acts
acts of
10.We farther note that
extraneous
provides
citations
no
assessments
complains
presented
were
in the
which
Therefore, ap-
any supporting testimony.
mental
treatment and
context of
any complaint
pellant
waived
as
other
assessments; they were not introduced
health
testimony
re-
extraneous acts
unidentified
convicting
purpose
appellant of
garding them.
upon
enhancing
convic-
charges
a sentence
Given the relevance of the information
tion.
discovery
two
Appellant's
requests
included
witnesses,
jury’s determination of
request
depose
requests to
condition,
court could have
the trial
provided in
the notice and disclosures
obtain
psychologi-
that admission of the
determined
Code sections 574.006
Mental Health
*12
We overrule
Therefore,
second issue.
In his appellant third con tends that estoppel Informing collateral bars Jury evidence 1. the the Effect Appellant extraneous offenses. argues, of its Answers. issues, as he did in his first two that his We turn now to charge present mental condition should be the issue, issues. fourth his he contends only his basis of evaluation each and every that jury the should not have been told year. He contends requiring that him to deciding it was whether relitigate past his princi acts violates the inpatient would be ordered to outpatient or ples However, of collateral estoppel. as in treatment. He claims that this error was issue, appellant his first wholly fails to made worse because the also jury knew apply the estoppel doctrine collateral question which in the charge related to the facts case. He does not identify which type of treatment. specific necessarily extraneous acts decid special ed in The proceedings, charge earlier he does not issues in the show con- question inpatient those acts essential tained a constitute ele treatment (section jury’s 574.035(a)), ments findings, of the and he outpatient does and on (section provide prior 574.035(b)), not any proceed record of treatment and the ings from prosecutor which we could determine explained jury what that one fact or facts were question foreclosed from inpatient the related treatment and jury’s consideration. parte Taylor, See Ex the outpatient other to treatment.11 Con- (D) deprive cal assessments would proposed patient inability the has an opportunity of a fair the contest evidence participate outpatient treatment services testimony. or effectively voluntarily, and demonstrated by: (i) 574.035(b), judge may proposed patient's Under section the actions proposed patient order a receive occurring period court- two-year within which outpatient ordered extended mental immediately precedes hearing; health only services if: (ii) specific pro- of the characteristics posed patient's clinical condition that make (1) judge appropriate finds mental impossible a rational and informed decision patient; health services are available voluntary outpatient whether to submit to treatment; jury, judge right or the if the to a (E) patient's proposed condition is ex- waived, jury is finds clear from and con- pected days; than 90 to continue more vincing evidence that: (A) ill; proposed patient mentally (F) proposed patient received has (B) the of the nature mental illness is se- inpatient health court-ordered mental ser- persistent; vere and vices under this subtitle or under Section (C) illness, as a result of the mental Procedure, Article Code of Criminal will, treated, proposed patient if not contin- during days for at least consecutive ue to: preceding 12 months. (i) mental, suffer severe and abnormal 574.035(b) § emotional, distress; physical Safety Tex Health & Code Ann. (Vernon (ii) Supp.2002). experience ability deterioration required to make the under subsection independently to function the extent (b)(2)(F) proposed patient already proposed if the will be unable to live safely community subject in the been an order without court-or- for extended services; 574.035(c). § dered mental health health Id. services. had that he claims special is- ment. which knew sequently, both the answer right treatment have the inquired about sue *13 jury questions; treatment. he inquired outpatient outpatient about inpatient which error. outpatient claims this was reversible Appellant judge could order claims the appellant cites argument, findings In of his made only jury if the treatment 574.082(f), to Health section argu- Mental Code support for his As this issue. on may part jury that “[t]he which states ment, sections relies on several ser- type about the not make a Health Code. of Mental proposed pa- provided to the vices jury State claims response, In Safety tient.” Tex. Ann. Health & Code inpatient and not have consider both did (Vernon 574.032(f) Supp.2002).12 § trial for the court outpatient treatment did, however, himself intro- Appellant According to the other. order one or the statutory separate in a provisions duce State, to or- judge had the discretion document, consistently though he had even jury even outpatient der treatment ef- jury not know the claimed the should outpatient on question not a did answer The of its answers. record does fects solely on arti- The relies treatment. State why appellant’s attorney introduced reveal cle 46.03. evidence; no gave into he this document presented by appellant, this issue As objected at the time. he reason As trial, First, a parts. jury really has two trial, say are throughout we reluctant inpatient order either can the trial court introducing he by waived the issue jury a find- outpatient treatment without However, intro- one document. it was Second, it error for the trial ing? jury and it was duced available options and not obtain a court limit her room, deliberation and it did tell outpatient on treatment? jury finding jury special outpatient which issue was for inpatient and which was for treatment. judge jury trial, a can the a. In reason, this conclude that he For type a of treatment without order either any potential error on issue. waived finding? jury overrule fourth issue. We whether, jury after a consider We first Conditioning 2. the Answer trial, order a treat- trial court could Outpatient on Positive Re- Treatment jury finding type on that ment without sponse Inpatient Treatment Supreme Court’s The Texas treatment. guides inquiry. our opinion Campbell issue, argues the fifth There, the trial question was whether court let the answer trial should have if it did not (section hearing judge could hold outpatient on questions both stating on file 574.085(b)) (section medical certificates have two inpatient in inpatient 574.035(a)) Campbell should remain The court did treatment. provides Health Code Instead, care. The Mental was instructed do this. needed; article certificates are two question outpatient on treat- answer the can hold a that a not 46.03 states only if it found that did ment Supreme hearing its own motion. treat- requirements inpatient meet the consequences verdicts. The of their v. United sider the 12. also cites Shannon 2419, States, appellant has waived the responds that 114 S.Ct. 512 U.S. not- (1994), a document issue he introduced the United because in which L.Ed.2d inpatient and ing provision related the well-es- which Supreme Court discussed States outpatient treatment. juries con- which related to principle are not to tablished began discussing Court the relationship Services”; Extended Mental Health between article 46.03 the Mental entitled “Order of Care or Com- Health Code. The pointed Court first out and, mitment.” agree We when we look at that “the proceedings described in article sections, these we find that each one con- 4(d)(6) 46.03 section determine whether very specific tains clear and directions that person should be from released involun- order for either tary Campbell, commitment.” 85 S.W.3d commitment supported by must be “They apply person to a who has findings. *14 been not guilty by insanity found reason of Section hearing 574.032 states that a for in the of a criminal offense and the extended mental health services—the type court [person] determines that the commit- hearing held here —“must be before a act, attempt ted an or threat of serious jury,” right unless that is waived. See bodily injury person.” to another Id. The Safety Tex. Health & Code Ann. Court that Campbell noted met cri- those 574.032(b). § provides, This section also teria, applied and that article 46.03 to his “In hearing a jury, jury before the shall case. determine if proposed patient the is men- However, explained the Court also ill tally the meets criteria for court- 46.03, 4(d)(5) article section was not the ordered health mental services.” Id. at only provision a court must look to when it 574.032(f). hearing holds a to determine whether to Section 574.035contains criteria the person release or recommit a acquitted must met before an individual is or- under article 46.03 of inflicting serious to inpatient dered extended or extended bodily injury on person. another The outpatient mental health services. Before Court emphasized 46.03, that article sec- judge may proposed order a 4(d)(5) patient to provides tion a hearing under types receive either of these of mental the pursuant section must be conducted to services, jury health the must find that the the provisions. Mental Health Code’s Id. proposed patient meets the criteria for As the very Mental Health Code broad inpatient outpatient mental health provisions and/or ap- contains that would not Safety services. See Tex. Health & Code ply 46.03, 4(d)(5) to an article section hear- § Ann. 574.035. ing, “only the Court held that those Mental provisions pertinent Health Code an to Finally, 574.036 section details what 4(d)(5) article proceeding ap- 46.03 section happen must the judge after dismisses the ply.” Ultimately, Id. at 182. the Court may the jury, judge before enter an concluded that “a hearing held arti- under committing order the individual either 4(d)(5) cle 46.03 section must comply inpatient outpatient health ser- provisions per- those Mental Health Code may The judge vices. hear additional evi- conducting tinent commitment hear- care,” settings dence as to “alternative for ings.” (emphasis Id. at in original). judge but the can enter order before Here, then, question committing inpatient the is which the individual to treatment, provisions Mental Health Code perti outpatient are the “trier —the nent conducting hearings. commitment of fact” as the section refers it—must parties generally agree that three sec find that the the individual meets criteria tions of the Mental perti type Health Code are for that of extended mental health Safety 574.032, nent: section “Right entitled services. See Tex. Health & Code Jury”; 574.035, § section entitled “Order 574.036. Ann. re- commit Did the trial court
Thus, perti- b. separate provisions in three by limiting options? her error section versible conducting an article nent 4(d)(5) hearing, Health Code the Mental Here, potential the trial court did the provides jury, judge, the treatment; only inpatient ly limit itself if meets criteria for decide out to consider the was told not And in mental health services. extended inpa patient question it answered sections, provides Code separate two But question positively. tient treatment make this be- must was flawed. charge not mean the does can order extended fore court on a argument relies think We mental health services. has no faulty assumption —that such, of the each of these sections As charge of the input into the contents how the court Mental Health Code directs has no discretion at the submission First, hearing. should conduct limit To con options. her charge hearing conduct the with a court must charge trary, the submission *15 second, waived, jury, one is and the unless Ea responsibility. Spencer v. trial court’s findings inpatient the jury must enter that America, 876 gle Ins. Co. S.W.2d Star of outpatient treatment criteria have and/or (Tex.1994). has the If the court been met. inpa choose between either discretion to jury after the outpatient tient or treatment spite sec- language
In these court positively, has answered both the tions, the claims article 46.03 the before sub also have the discretion the must Code Criminal Procedure authorizes (1) it will mitting charge the to decide that inpatient outpatient to order court jury if only inpatient treatment the order jury as the made a long treatment as affirmatively question that answers positive finding inpatient for treatment.13 outpatient treatment if will not consider relevant Mental Health Code three is inpatient treatment jury the finds that not argument. sections do this conditioning the appropriate. By question, agree appellant Consequently, we with essence, is, judge trial did that what the appropriate reading the article that all evi she had heard the here. After and the Health is this: 46.03 Mental Code dence, charge, the submitting but before jury the that once has found a inpatient that apparently she decided inpatient outpa- meets the criteria treat treatment, the more advisable treatment was judge has tient the the discre- if the two, the same as or, ment. The result if tion choose between the the positively; two, questions both jury a answered jury finding has made of one of the have chosen judge apparently the would judge may order that treatment. inpatient outpatient rather than treatment Thus, agree also we treatment. judge, by conditioning claim that the trial trial treatment, say that the unwilling We are jury question outpatient only to unwittingly limited herself limiting options. judge her ran .the risk We con- however, inpatient charge At the error. treatment. agree, not that do necessary, finding by jury is providing sort language that some 13. The State relies on argue could it that the court inpatient because does treatment the court shall order inpatient outpatient treatment acquitted person either that contin- order determines though finding, article jury a even inpatient treat- without the criteria for ues meet jury ment, language requiring a inap- outpatient does not contain that treatment finding. that propriate. The State seems concede ference, appellant very clearly argued require finding sections by the factfinder judge could not order treat- person that the has received court-ordered ment if services; did not enter a positive mental health the third section question. By choosing away does with this requirement if the question, condition the the judge already subject exercised defendant has been to an her discretion before submission rather order for extended mental health services. than afterward. keep Had she wanted to Appellant contends that when we re- option open, she could have. She order, versed 2001 commitment there to, chose not and that was within her nowas “valid” commitment order effect. logical discretion. This is both effi- order, Without valid commitment judge cient. If the trial pre- knew she prove State would have treatment, inpatient ferred it would un- be received court-ordered mental health ser- necessary and requiring wasteful vices days least consecutive dur- options. consider both previous ing year. As the State did summary, agree with appellant this, prove it did not meet its burden— judge that the cannot order according the order —and outpatient treatment unless first must reversed. enters positive finding to those issues. Appellant also cites one of our cases in But, here, even though did which we equated grant reversal to the limit ultimately options, her she committed State, ing a new trial. See Al Haj v. *16 no error in the submission of the charge. (Tex.App.-Houston 660 [14th S.W.2d Dist.]
We overrule
fifth issue.
1996),
dism’d,
(Tex.
pet.
932
S.W.2d
Crim.App.1996). There we said the follow
3. The Reversal and Remand of the
ing about the
of a
effect
reversal:
2001 Commitment Order.
effect,
In
granting
the
of a new trial
supplemental
ap
In two
issues on
restored
its
case to
status
peal, appellant
that
argues
he should be
trial, including
before the ...
arraign-
released because this Court reversed the
or any pretrial proceedings
ment
initi-
2001 Commitment Order.
by
ated
the State.
argument
bases his
on three
Id. at 663.
sections
in
Safety
contained
the Health &
Using this
as a
language
springboard, he
574.035(a)(4)
Code. Two of the sections—
argues
put
that a reversal here would
the
574.035(b)(2)(F),
pertain
which
in
position
case
the
it was in before the
court-ordered
and outpatient
order,
out
wiping
both the order and
mental health
require
judge
the
services—
subsequent stay
hospital,
if
the
as
find
jury to
from
convincing
clear and
happened.
corollary,
a
neither
As
he also
evidence that the defendant has received
reversed,
that
argues
having been
the 2001
patient
court-ordered
services for at least
commitment order is invalid or void and
days during
preceding
consecutive
that
should be released. We
twelve months. The third section states
disagree
interpretation.
Instead,
with this
that the
need
judge
not make the
Roland,
we think State v.
ported Finally, order. our Court’s re-
versal of the order did render
void so that the State be required would
prove days prior ANDERSON, Appellant, commitment for 60 Lisa the 2002 order. v. *18 reasons, For these we affirm the trial Wayland LONG, and Carrie Individual- judgment.
court’s ly, and 2L Truck and Trailer d/b/a Interiors, Sales and Custom Trailer BRISTER, C.J., concurring. Appellees. BRISTER, Justice, SCOTT Chief No. 2-02-308-CV. concurring. Texas, Appeals Court join I judgment in the Court’s and all Fort Worth. C(2). aspects opinion part except its Aug. I part opinion, agree As to that 25, 2003. Rehearing Sept. Overruled Court’s conclusion the court did not err in conditioning the jury question negative
treatment on a an-
swer question. treatment