Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In April 1998, a jury found the appellant “not guilty by reason of insanity” of the 1995 murder of a woman at a Gerland’s Food Fair in Harris County. The appellant was committed to Vernon State Hospital in accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 46.03 �4(d). Each year, the appellant, diagnosed with psychosis due to a seizure disorder, has been recommitted to inpatient care by court order, most recently at Kerrville State Hospital. Prior to the expiration of the 2001 recommitment order, the state filed with the trial court an application to continue the appellant’s mental-health services. The application included medical certificates from Dr. Debra Osterman and Dr. Thomas Brandon, who each examined the appellant by court order while he was at the Harris County Jail. The appellant was transferred from Kerrville State Hospital to the Harris County Jail around October 9, 2002, pending his recommitment proceeding. The appellant filed a motion to be transferred from the jail to the Harris County Psychiatric Center, and the trial court denied the motion the same day. The psychiatrists who examined appellant while at the jail concluded that appellant met the criteria for commitment to a mental-health facility, citing, among other things, lack of insight into the “suddenness or unexpectedness of onset of his psychotic episodes.” On his behalf, the unit psychiatrist and chief executive officer of Kerrville State Hospital filed a letter and certificate recommending the appellant be placed in a group home with follow up by the Harris County Act Team. The appellant challenged his need for continued inpatient care in a November 2002 proceeding. A jury found the appellant mentally ill and likely to cause serious harm to others. The jury also found appellant suffered severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress, experienced substantial mental or physical deterioration of his ability to function independently, and was unable to make a rational and informed decision regarding treatment. In addition, the jury concluded that the appellant’s condition was expected to continue for more than 90 days. The trial court then ordered the appellant committed to Kerrville State Hospital, finding it the least restrictive appropriate setting available. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant claims the state’s introduction of past criminal acts at an annual recommitment hearing is contrary to the intent of the Texas Mental Health Code and results in successive prosecution and punishment for the same offenses in violation of the double-jeopardy doctrine. In that case, the court concluded that recommitment hearings, and the judgment following the hearings, are neither criminal prosecutions nor punishments. The court reasoned that when a jury revisits the original crimes in a recommitment hearing, the crimes are used as additional background information to assess the appellant’s improvement, not to re-adjudicate the original offense. In addition, a commitment under Article 46.03 is a civil matter, despite the underlying criminal prosecution. Campbell v. State, 85 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. 2002). Double jeopardy applies only to criminal cases. Ex Parte Watkins, 73 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The civil nature of the proceeding can be overcome by a showing that the involuntary commitment is punitive or retaliatory in nature. To do so in this instance would require appellant to demonstrate that the current legislative scheme of treating mentally ill persons at psychiatric facilities is punitive or retaliatory. The appellant has not offered evidence in this regard. The appellant next contends that collateral estoppel bars the introduction of his prior criminal conduct into evidence. Specifically, the appellant argues that the facts of the 1991 and 1995 crimes committed while he was insane are being relitigated at the annual commitment hearings in violation of the collateral-estoppel doctrine. To determine whether collateral estoppel bars part or all of a subsequent prosecution, courts employ a two-step analysis in which they ask the following: 1. what facts were “necessarily decided” in the first proceeding; and 2. do those “necessarily decided” facts constitute essential elements of the offense in the second trial. The appellant does not specify which facts were “necessarily decided” in the first proceeding nor does he address which proceeding constituted the first proceeding. In terms of the 1991 incident, there is no record of the trial court proceeding, if any, before us. The clerk’s record begins with the complaint in the 1995 case. Therefore, this court cannot assess which facts were “necessarily decided” in a proceeding based on the 1991 incident. As for the 1995 criminal act, a jury found the appellant “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Assuming the appellant is referring to the recommitment hearings themselves as the proceedings barred by collateral estoppel, his argument rests on the fact that the state continues to raise his past conduct each year. Even if this were enough to point the court to the facts the appellant feels were “necessarily decided,” the appellant has not discussed how those “necessarily decided” facts are essential elements of the “offense in the second trial.” In addition, the appellant does not cite any authority finding collateral estoppel in the context of a recommitment hearing. In fact, this court declined to find collateral estoppel under very similar facts in Campbell. As in Campbell, the court does not find collateral estoppel applicable. OPINION:Yates, J.; Yates, Edelman and Guzman, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.