IN RE: MH2012-003236

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) IN RE MH2012-003236 ) ) ) ) _______________________________________ ) 1 CA-MH 12-0094 DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/18/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. MH2012-003236 The Honorable Susan G. White, Commissioner AFFIRMED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Anne C. Longo, Deputy County Attorney and Bruce P. White, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Marty Lieberman, Maricopa County Office of the Legal Defender By Cynthia Dawn Beck, Deputy Legal Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found by clear and convincing evidence Appellant was, as a result of a mental disorder, persistently or acutely disabled, in need of psychiatric treatment, but unwilling and unable to accept voluntary treatment. Accordingly, the court ordered Appellant to undergo a combination of inpatient and outpatient treatment ( treatment order ). ¶2 On treatment appeal, order Appellant because, argues contrary to we should Arizona vacate Revised the Statute ( A.R.S. ) section 36-539(B) (Supp. 2012), Appellant s father, D.B., called by Appellee, petitioner in the superior court, as an acquaintance witness, was not acquainted with the patient at the time of the alleged mental disorder. ¶3 First, objection to as the an initial matter, sufficiency acquaintance witness. We disagree. of Appellant D.B. s raised testimony as no an Normally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal except under exceptional circumstances. In re MH2008-002659, 224 Ariz. 25, 27, ¶ 9, 226 P.3d (App. 394, 396 exceptional rule. 2010). circumstance In our warranting view, relief this from is this not an waiver The reason is simple -- Appellant s failure to object to the sufficiency of D.B. s testimony at the hearing prejudiced Appellee as Appellee points out on appeal. If Appellant s counsel had raised the issue at the hearing, then counsel for Petitioner could have further examined [D.B.] or called another 2 witness to testify, and the issue could have easily been addressed by the [superior] court. ¶4 Second, even if not waived, Appellant s argument is not well taken. As we explained in In re MH2008-002596, 223 Ariz. 32, 36, ¶ 17, 219 P.3d 242, 246 (App. 2009), A.R.S. § 36539(B) does not impose a specific length of time over which the acquaintance or familiarity with the patient must take place or the manner in which the witness s familiarity with the patient must be acquired. and relevance witness must of Instead, the statute focuses on the nature the have witness s personal and testimony. relevant The acquaintance information whether the patient is suffering from a mental disorder. as to Id. at 36, ¶¶ 16-17, 219 P.3d at 246. ¶5 Here, D.B. s testimony met these requirements. As Appellant s father, D.B. had known Appellant for at least 30 years. He was familiar with Appellant s behavior based on his own first-hand personal experiences with Appellant. As of the date of the hearing, D.B. had spoken or met with Appellant at least four times over the prior ten months. Although D.B. was unable to identify the precise dates of these communications, he explained he had been concerned about Appellant s mental health for years and, although Appellant had never done anything that would indicate he was going 3 to harm anyone, Appellant nevertheless gave the impression of being very violent. He has a loud voice, and he screams and rants and raves and parades up and down. ¶6 For the foregoing reasons, therefore, we affirm the superior court s treatment order. /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.