6 results for 'cat:"Commitment" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Sandefur holds that the district court's involuntarily commitment order was not based solely on the hearsay statements of the patient's husband. A mental health nurse practitioner, medical staff and a court-appointed professional counselor supported commitment. The husband's out of court statements to the counselor were not legally hearsay since they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter but were relevant to the counselor's expert opinion. Affirmed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Sandefur, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: DA 21-0476, Categories: Evidence, commitment, experts
J. Fisher finds that the lower court improperly dismissed a retention order for defendant after he was committed to a state facility for a "dangerous mental disorder" following his guilty plea to sexual misconduct at a group home. Expert testimony established that, despite making improvements, defendant continued to be qualified as mentally ill and that his developmental disabilities required continued retention in a state treatment facility. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Fisher, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: CV-22-2361, Categories: commitment, experts
J. Rodriguez finds a lower court ruled correctly in civilly committing defendant as a sexually violent predator. Defendant raised a couple of issues with his conviction, including arguing a lower court abused its discretion by admitting the deposition transcript of an expert, but the expert was clear that she was not diagnosing defendant but rather making “diagnostic recommendations,” and the state established her “knowledge, skill, experience, and training.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 08-22-00221-CV, Categories: Evidence, commitment, experts
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Carlyle finds that the lower court properly determined appellant to be a sexually violent predator in this civil commitment case. Contrary to his argument on appeal, the evidence sufficiently establishes the existence of a "behavioral abnormality." The statutory definition is not ambiguous, as he contends, and an expert witness testified as to the abnormality. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Carlyle, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 05-21-01141-CV, Categories: Evidence, commitment, experts