State v. K.G.

Counsel for an alleged mentally ill person in a civil commitment proceeding is not required to be present for an interview by the civil commitment investigator.

In a civil commitment proceeding where Appellant had schizophrenia and inflicted injuries to herself with a knife, she was placed on a physician's hold, where she was combative and deemed unlikely to take her medications. An investigator interviewed Appellant while she was in the custody of a physician. Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s decision to allow the investigation without her counsel present, and to the court’s finding that she was a risk to herself. During the civil commitment proceeding the court ruled that the interview was not required to occur in the presence of counsel as civil commitment does not parallel criminal proceedings. The court also found in favor of commitment as due to the injuries and refusal of medication Appellant was a risk to herself. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, upholding the decision not to require the investigator’s presence, and that appellant was a risk to herself. The Court of Appeals reasoned that since the statute only requires counsel present during examinations by the mental health examiner and hearings, an interview by the investigator did not necessitate the presence of counsel. Additionally, there is not a strong enough parallel between civil commitments and criminal proceedings to constitutionally require the presence of counsel at interviews. Lastly, the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to uphold a commitment finding as Appellant was shown to have a risk of not taking medications. AFFIRMED