Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion Digests / Civil Practice / Civil Practice — Involuntary Commitment – Constitutional – Due Process – Judges

Civil Practice — Involuntary Commitment – Constitutional – Due Process – Judges

Doctors from a private hospital petitioned to have respondent involuntarily committed as a danger to herself. At the hearing on the petition, neither the state nor the hospital was represented by counsel. The trial judge called a hospital psychiatrist as a witness. For the reasons stated in the majority and concurring opinions in In re C.G., 2021-NCCOA-344, we reject respondent’s argument that her due process rights were violated.

We affirm the involuntary commitment order.

On appeal, respondent argues that her right to cross-examine witnesses was violated when neither of the doctors who examined her was present at her hearing and the psychiatrist who testified had no firsthand knowledge, depriving her of any meaningful cross-examination. Since respondent failed to object appropriately at the hearing, she has not preserved this argument for appellate review.


(Griffin, J.): I dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in In re C.G., 2021-NCCOA-344.

In re R.S.H. (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-221-21, 5 pp.) (Chris Dillon, J.) (Jefferson Griffin, J., dissenting) Appealed from Durham County District Court (Patricia Evans, J.) Rachel Brunswig for the state; Candace Washington for respondent. 2021-NCCOA-369


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *