Opinion
No. CX-97-435.
Filed June 24, 1997.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. P59760016.
Nancy K. Olkon, Olkon Olkon, P.A., (for Appellant).
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, John St. Marie, Coleen Mary Brady, Assistant County Attorneys, (for Respondent).
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Jason Hofstede challenges his commitment to the Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center as chemically dependent and mentally ill under Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subds. 2, 13 (1996). We affirm.
DECISION
If the district court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the proposed patient is mentally ill, mentally retarded, or chemically dependent and there is no suitable alternative to judicial commitment, the court shall commit the patient to the least restrictive treatment program consistent with the patient's treatment needs. Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 1 (1996). Review on appeal is limited to an examination of the district court's compliance with the statute, which requires specific findings of fact, separate conclusions of law, and a listing of less restrictive alternatives considered and rejected. In re Fusa , 355 N.W.2d 456, 457 (Minn.App. 1984); Minn. Stat. § 253B.09, subd. 2 (1996). Findings of the district court shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
Fusa , 355 N.W.2d at 457 (quoting Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01).
I.
Under the Minnesota Civil Commitment Act, a person is not defined as a "mentally ill person" unless they pose a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as demonstrated by * * * a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care * * * or a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others.
Minn. Stat. § 253.02, subd.13 (1996).
Appellant challenges the district court's determination that his recent conduct resulting from mental illness poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others. Appellant, however, does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's extensive findings relating to appellant's propensity to harm self and others, including the following: (1) paranoia, rage, continual threats to harm hospital staff or himself, a history of assaultiveness, agitation, a longstanding preoccupation with death and killing, a need to view his life in apocalyptic terms, poor impulse control, and lack of insight; (2) threats directed at hospital staff, graphically describing gruesome compulsions; (3) a lack of moral compunction about harming other people; (4) suicidal statements; (5) a past history of assaulting his wife and other hospital staff; and (6) punching a wall within the past few days and injuring his hand. Significantly, appellant admits: (1) he made many aggressive, hostile, and verbally abusive remarks to staff while he was in the hospital; (2) he struck a wall; (3) he made many remarks about harming persons with guns and knives; (4) his hostility and verbal abuse accelerated during the course of his hospital confinement; and (5) he had stated that there is a war inside his head and he described himself as a time bomb.
Appellant asserts, however, that there is no likelihood that he will carry out any of his verbal threats. He claims his inability to control his verbal behavior was exacerbated by hospitalization, and the district court erred by failing to consider his prior conduct in the community. We disagree. It is undisputed that appellant harmed his hand by punching a wall just a few days prior to the commitment hearing. Further, the medical records and testimony at trial indicate numerous physical threats directed at the hospital staff within two weeks of the hearing. In re Martin , 458 N.W.2d 700, 705 (Minn.App. 1990) (testimony that appellant occasionally threatens to assault hospital staff provides the basis for the district court's determination that there was a substantial likelihood of harm to self or others if he were in an open community). This court's review is limited to determining whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. See Fusa , 355 N.W.2d at 457 (stating appropriate standard of review). Based on the record, we cannot say the inferences drawn by the district court as reflected in its findings are clearly erroneous.
II.
The Minnesota Civil Commitment Act defines a "chemically dependent person" as any person
(a) determined as being incapable of self-management or management of personal affairs by reason of the habitual and excessive use of alcohol or drugs; and
(b) whose recent conduct as a result of habitual and excessive use of alcohol or drugs poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as demonstrated by:
(i) a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others,
(ii) evidence of recent serious physical problems, or
(iii) a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.
Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 2 (1996). Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's findings that: (1) appellant is incapable of self-management or management of his personal affairs by reason of his habitual and excessive use of marijuana, as demonstrated by the fact that he has a long history of chemical abuse and he used marijuana on a daily basis from February 1996 until early December 1996; and (2) his use of chemicals exacerbates his mental illness and prevents him from obtaining proper treatment for it.
Appellant argues: (1) his persistent past use of marijuana did not impact his ability to obtain proper treatment; (2) the evidence does not show that he used marijuana regularly during the past year; and (3) he gave up use of drugs and alcohol a full month prior to his most recent hospitalization for mental illness.
Evidence in the record, however, contradicts appellant's argument and demonstrates: (1) appellant has a history of chemical abuse, including use of marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, and LSD; (2) appellant used marijuana daily from February of 1996 until December 20, 1996, about three weeks prior to his hospitalization; (3) appellant was discharged from the V.A.'s Alpha Dual Diagnosis treatment program in September of 1996 for lack of consistent attendance; and (4) chemical use exacerbates appellant's mental illness. Thus, again, we cannot say the district court's findings are clearly erroneous.
Appellant also argues that because his demonstrated prior ability to manage his affairs in the community, while maintaining full-time employment, indicates a capacity for self-management and an ability to manage his personal affairs, the district court clearly erred in making a finding of chemical dependency. We disagree. The district court found that appellant had failed to obtain proper treatment for his chemical dependency and that his conduct poses a likelihood of physical harm to self and others. In re Galusha , 372 N.W.2d 843, 847 (Minn.App. 1985) (patient cannot adequately perform the ordinary activities of daily life due to his inability to manage his drinking, control his aggressive behavior, take medication, and care for himself). In light of this finding, we conclude the district court was not clearly erroneous in determining appellant failed to properly manage his personal affairs.