Opinion
No. 108,031.
2013-04-19
In the Matter of the Care & Treatment of Myoun L. SAWYER.
Appeal from Pawnee District Court; Bruce T. Gatterman, Judge. Heather Helvie, of Law Offices of Helvie & Cowell, of Larned, for appellant. David J. Basgall, general counsel, Larned State Hospital, of Larned, for appellee.
Appeal from Pawnee District Court; Bruce T. Gatterman, Judge.
Heather Helvie, of Law Offices of Helvie & Cowell, of Larned, for appellant. David J. Basgall, general counsel, Larned State Hospital, of Larned, for appellee.
Before MALONE, C.J., GREEN and STANDRIDGE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Myoun Sawyer appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding that he was mentally ill and subject to involuntary commitment under K.S.A. 59–2946(f)(1) and K.S.A. 59–2966(a). Nevertheless, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we determine that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Sawyer was a mentally ill person subject to involuntary commitment for his care and treatment. Accordingly, we affirm.
On November 7, 2011, Dr. Emmanuel Okeke, a psychiatrist for the sexual predator program at Earned State Hospital filed a petition to determine if Sawyer was mentally ill and subject to involuntary commitment for care and treatment. On December 14, 2011, a bench trial occurred before a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge held that Sawyer was mentally ill and was subject to involuntary commitment.
At the bench trial before the magistrate judge, Dr. Okeke testified that he had been Sawyer's psychiatrist ever since Sawyer entered the sexual predator program. Dr. Okeke testified that when Sawyer first entered the program he had not been taking any medications and was not prescribed any medications. Within 2 weeks of entering the program, Sawyer began to exhibit mood swings and irritability. Sawyer became paranoid and verbally and physically aggressive. As a result of Sawyer's aggressive behavior, he was involved in three or four fights with other residents within the first 4 months of being in the program. After observing Sawyer, Dr. Okeke determined that Sawyer should be medicated to help stabilize his moods. Sawyer resisted the medication at first, but he later agreed to a lower dose. After several days, however, Sawyer refused to take the medication. Dr. Okeke testified that Sawyer told him that he did not want to take the medication because he was concerned about the possible side effects, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and decreased sexual desire.
Dr. Okeke diagnosed Sawyer with Bipolar I Disorder, Manic Type. One aspect of Sawyer's disorder is his super hypersexuality. Dr. Okeke further testified that Sawyer often masturbated in his room when he knew a female nurse would be coming in to check on him. Dr. Okeke stated that Sawyer demanded that a female nurse check on him and that he became angry if a male nurse checked on him. Dr. Okeke explained that Sawyer also made verbal sexual comments that were not acceptable.
Finally, Dr. Okeke testified that Sawyer did not have the insight to recognize his behavioral problems and that he could not make informed decisions regarding his treatment. Dr. Okeke further testified that Sawyer lacked insight into the risks and levels of aggression of his behavior and that Sawyer exhibited a desire to kill when involved in a fight.
Sawyer appealed to the district court, arguing that the magistrate judge erred in finding that he was mentally ill. Later, both parties filed a joint stipulation for appeal to the district court, waiving live testimony and requesting the district court decide the issues on appeal from submission by transcript of the previous trial. After reviewing the previous trial transcript, the district court affirmed the ruling that Sawyer was mentally ill and subject to involuntary commitment.
Standard of Review
“When a verdict is challenged as being contrary to the evidence, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of the witnesses. If the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, supports the verdict, the appellate court should not intervene.” Unruh v. Purina Mills, 289 Kan. 1185, 1195, 221 P.3d 1130 (2009).
Was there sufficient evidence to find Sawyer was mentally ill and subject to involuntary commitment?
Sawyer incorrectly argues that an abuse of discretion applies to his case. Sawyer contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he was mentally ill and subject to involuntary commitment. Sawyer is essentially arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he is mentally ill and subject to involuntary civil commitment. The State refutes Sawyer's allegation and maintains that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Sawyer was mentally ill and subject to involuntary commitment.
Under K.S A. 59–2966(a), a court shall order a person to treatment for a specified period up to 3 months when, upon the completion of trial, “the court or jury finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient is a mentally ill person subject to involuntary commitment for care and treatment under this act.”
K.S.A. 59–2946(e) defines a “mentally ill person” as follows:
“[A]ny person who is suffering from a mental disorder which is manifested by a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern and associated with either a painful symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning, and involving substantial behavioral, psychological or biological dysfunction, to the extent that the person is in need of treatment.”
K.S.A. 59–2946(f)(1) further defines a “mentally ill person subject to involuntary commitment ” as follows:
“[A] mentally ill person, as defined in subsection (e), who also lacks capacity to make an informed decision concerning treatment, is likely to cause harm to self or others, and whose diagnosis is not solely one of the following mental disorders: Alcohol or chemical substance abuse; antisocial personality disorder; mental retardation; organic personality syndrome; or an organic mental disorder.”
Sawyer contends that the record does not support a finding that he lacked the capacity to make informed decisions concerning treatment, that his masturbation in his room constituted a public display, and that he was and continues to be a danger to himself or others.
As stated earlier, Sawyer was diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder, Manic Type, which qualifies him as a mentally ill person as defined under K.S.A. 59–2946(e). Because we determine that Sawyer is mentally ill, we must next determine whether Sawyer lacks the capacity to make informed decisions regarding his care and treatment and whether Sawyer is likely to cause harm to himself or others. See K.S.A. 59–2946(f)(1).
The evidence presented supports the trial court's finding that Sawyer lacks the capacity to make informed decisions regarding his care and treatment.
First, we must review the record to determine what evidence supports the trial court's finding that Sawyer lacks the capacity to make informed decisions regarding his care and treatment. In its order, the trial court relied on Dr. Okeke's testimony to support its finding. Dr. Okeke testified that Sawyer does not recognize or appreciate his behavioral problems, does not understand the benefits of treatment, including medication; displays signs of superhyper sexuality; and can become very aggressive, leading to physical fights. Additionally, Dr. Okeke testified that Sawyer's behavior could be corrected by proper medication but Sawyer refuses to take the medication. Sawyer argues that he does not lack the capacity to make informed decisions regarding his care and treatment simply because he refused the prescribed medication. In fact, Sawyer suggests that he “simply made an informed decision to not take the prescribed medication due to a concern over potential side effects.” Dr. Okeke testified that the medication was set at a low dose and that it would not affect Sawyer's sexual desires. Further, Dr. Okeke testified that he “strongly believe[s] that at this point Mr. Sawyer does lack the capacity to make informed decisions towards this [ sic ] treatment.” Based on this evidence, it is readily apparent that the trial court properly determined that Sawyer lacks the capacity to make informed decisions regarding his care and treatment.
The evidence presented supports the trial court's finding that Sawyer is likely to cause harm to himself or others.
Finally, we must determine if Sawyer is likely to cause harm to himself or others. After reviewing the record, the evidence presented shows that Sawyer suffers from mood swings and is verbally and physically aggressive, as well as being paranoid. In the few months that Sawyer had received treatment, he had three or four fights and often seemed motivated to kill the person with whom he was fighting. Dr. Okeke further testified that because of Sawyer's bipolar disorder, it was difficult for him to control himself and that he could become aggressive if a woman refused his advances.
Dr. Okeke testified that part of the danger to Sawyer was how other individuals would react to his behavior. Dr, Okeke pointed out that other individuals would not know that Sawyer's mental illness had caused him to act out and would retaliate against him, placing him in further danger. Dr. Okeke admitted that he was concerned that other residents would team up on Sawyer and hurt him. Dr. Okeke testified that Sawyer was a highly intelligent person but that he needed to be on medication to be functional. Based on Sawyer's mood swings and aggressive behavior, we determine that the trial court properly determined that Sawyer is likely to cause harm to himself or others.
When resolving all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the State, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Sawyer was mentally ill and subject to involuntary commitment under K.S.A. 59–2946(f)(1) and K.S.A. 59–2966(a). As a result, we determine that the trial court properly denied Sawyer's appeal. Thus, we affirm the trial court's determination that Sawyer was a mentally ill person subject to involuntary commitment for his care and treatment.
Affirmed.