Developments in Mental Health Law is a free publication of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, School of Law. It is published electronically six times per year through funding provided by the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services. The following was excerpted from Volume 30, Issue 2, edited by Jane D. Hickey.
Below are brief summaries of recently decided or currently pending cases in mental health law.
Virginia Supreme Court Permits SVP to Rescind Refusal to Cooperate; General Assembly Establishes Procedure
On November 4, 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the finding of the Pittsylvania County Circuit Court and remanded for a new trial a case decided under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Hood v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 526, 701 S.E.2d 421 (2010). The Supreme Court determined that the circuit court’s decision that it had no discretion to permit a prisoner to rescind his refusal to cooperate with the Commonwealth’s mental health expert during the assessment examination violated the respondent’s procedural due process rights. The Court held that Virginia Code § 37.2-901 permitted, but did not require, the trial court to admit evidence of the respondent’s refusal and bar the respondent from introducing his own expert evidence. Virginia Code § 37.2-907(A) relating to the appointment of experts must be read in conjunction with § 37.2-901, even though it states that if the respondent refuses to cooperate with the examination under § 37.1-901, any expert appointed shall not be permitted to testify at trial nor any report be admissible. The Supreme Court held that due process requires the trial court to consider the circumstances surrounding the respondent’s refusal to cooperate and whether the respondent is currently ready to cooperate. The trial court thus has discretion as to what limits to place on admissibility of evidence. In this case, the respondent refused to cooperate before counsel was appointed to represent him and he was currently expressing a desire to cooperate. Virginia appears to be the only state that has such an evidentiary provision in its SVP Act.
In response to this decision, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1698 (Athey) and Senate Bill 1275 (Obenshain) on February 23, 2011, establishing procedures surrounding the respondent’s decision to rescind any refusal to cooperate. The respondent may rescind his refusal to cooperate and elect to cooperate with the mental health examination within 21 days of retention or appointment of counsel. Counsel for the respondent must provide written notice of the respondent’s election to cooperate to the court and the attorney for the Commonwealth within 30 days of the appointment or retention of counsel. The probable cause hearing is then postponed until 30 days after receipt of the mental health examiner’s report. If the respondent thereafter refuses to cooperate with the mental health examination, the court is required to admit evidence of such failure or refusal and to bar the respondent from introducing his own expert evidence. These bills are awaiting signature by the Governor.
Court Authorizes Lay Testimony of Defendant’s Behavior for Three Years Since His Return from Iraq to Support Insanity Defense
In a case from Oklahoma, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the conviction of an Iraqi war veteran convicted of three armed robberies and an attempted armed robbery and ordered a new trail. United States v. Goodman, 2011 U.S.App. LEXIS 1760 (10th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011). Relying solely on the insanity defense, the defendant who suffered a mental breakdown on the battle field, argued and the 10th Circuit agreed, that the district court improperly limited lay testimony to observations of his behavior immediately before and after his eight-day robbery spree rather than permitting testimony about his erratic behavior for the three years since his return from Iraq. The Court found that the temporal limits imposed were improper because the evidence excluded was not too stale. The evidence was only at most three years old and part of a continuous pattern beginning with his post-combat psychiatric treatment. The Court also held that the trial court improperly precluded opinion testimony by lay witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Rule 704(b) only bars experts from offering opinions about a criminal’s state of mind. Rule 704(a) permits lay opinion on the ultimate issue before the court.
Civil Rights Complaint Alleging 4th Amendment Violation in Death of Man with Bipolar Disorder Dismissed
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s dismissal of a § 1983 complaint brought by the widow of a man with bipolar disorder against two city police officers alleging violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure that resulted in his death. Johnson v. City of Memphis, 617 F.3d 864 (6th Cir. 2010). The plaintiff called 911 seeking assistance for her husband, but hung up and left the house before the operator answered. Receiving no response to a follow-up call, the operator dispatched two patrol officers to the house. Upon arrival, the officers found the door open and after announcing their presence and receiving no response, entered the house with their weapons drawn. The man jumped on one officer grabbing his gun; a scuffle ensued; and the plaintiff’s husband was killed. The Court held that the entry met the exigent circumstances emergency aid exception to the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures based upon the factual circumstances in this case.
Tennessee Dismisses EMTALA Complaint in Suicide Case
A United States District Court in Tennessee dismissed this lawsuit brought by the executor of Joshua Ashley Burd against Lebanon HMA, Inc. under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C § 1395dd. Burd ex rel. Burd v. Lebannon HMA, Inc., 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 124696 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 23, 2010). Burd was initially brought to the emergency room after attempting suicide by hanging himself. Finding him to have high “suicide lethality” and testing positive for cocaine and opiates, Burd was committed to Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute, a state mental health facility. A psychiatrist at the facility found him not to be a suicide risk and did not admit him. A police officer checking on his condition at home later that evening found an outstanding arrest warrant and learned that Burd had consumed two bottles of vodka. Believing he was a suicide risk, the officer returned Burd to the emergency room. Emergency room staff assessed him and determined he was suffering from acute situational anxiety, not an emergency medical condition, and discharged him. Burd was found dead the next morning from hanging. The trial court dismissed the EMTALA claim finding that the plaintiff had presented no proof of improper motive on behalf of emergency room staff. It found that there was no evidence that the decedent would have been assessed differently had he had health insurance. The court also found that if hospital staff does not have actual knowledge that an emergency medical condition exists, EMTALA does not apply. Any allegations related to medical malpractice must be decided in state court under state malpractice law