In re Spencer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA14-142 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 September 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES SPENCER Wake County No. 13 SPC 05 Appeal by respondent from order entered 27 June 2013 by Judge Jacqueline Brewer in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Josephine Tetteh, for the State. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Matthew W. Wolfe and Robert A. Leandro, for petitioner Holly Hill Hospital. Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes, by Appellate Defender Mary Cook, for respondent. Assistant McCULLOUGH, Judge. Respondent James Spencer appeals from a trial court s order, involuntarily committing him to an inpatient facility for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days. Based on the reasons stated herein, of the trial court and remand this court for the making of we case reverse to the the appropriate findings of fact. order trial -2I. Background On 19 June 2013, Arlene Midgett filed an affidavit and petition for involuntary commitment in Tyrrell County District Court. The affidavit and petition for involuntary commitment stated that respondent James Edward Spencer was mentally ill and dangerous to self or others or mentally ill and in need of treatment in order to prevent further disability or deterioration that would predictably result in dangerousness. The affidavit also provided that the Sheriff s Department had received numerous respondent s cemetery erratic where his calls from behavior. mother and respondent s Respondent brother are family had walked buried and about to a told deputies that he was going to sleep on the graves tonight. When deputies attempted to return respondent to his home, respondent replied that they had just as well call Hitler from the dead and draw guns and go ahead and kill him now. A hearing was held at the 27 June 2013 session of Wake County District Court. Dr. Muhammed Saeed examined respondent at Holly Hill Hospital on 24 and 25 June 2013. Dr. Saeed determined that respondent was mentally ill and suffered from chronic schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation. Dr. Saeed testified that respondent was very paranoid and had grandiose -3delusions. According to Dr. Saeed, respondent threatened the staff of Holly Hill Hospital as they were attempting to give respondent his medication. respondent s medical Consistent with reports contained in records, respondent would stab the staff with a pen. threatened that he Dr. Saeed recommended that respondent be committed to inpatient care for a period of sixty (60) days. Respondent s sister, Auray Midgett, testified that she had a healthcare power of attorney to act on behalf of respondent. In May 2013, Washington Respondent respondent County was was Hospital released to committed in for Plymouth, outpatient six (6) North treatment, days at Carolina. but began calling various state prisons, offices in Washington, D.C. and President Barack Obama. Respondent seemed agitated, and based on Midgett his behavior, Ms. petitioned for involuntary commitment on 19 June 2013. Angela Spencer, respondent s daughter, testified that one evening prior to his commitment in June 2013, respondent was at her home. Respondent was agitated and paranoid, and Ms. Spencer saw him pushing a fingernail file through her cable box. called the police and respondent voluntarily left her home. She -4Respondent also testified at his hearing. He did not believe he needed to be treated at Holly Hill Hospital, but rather, preferred to be treated by a psychiatrist he had seen in the past. The trial court entered an order on 27 June 2013, finding by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the respondent contests commitment. Stipulate to mental illness, a danger to self, and others, and in need of treatment. concluded that respondent himself and others. was mentally ill The trial court and Based on the foregoing, dangerous to respondent was involuntarily committed to an inpatient facility for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days. From this order, respondent filed notice of appeal on 25 July 2013. II. Respondent s sole Discussion argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by involuntarily committing him when the 27 June 2013 order was not supported by sufficient written findings of fact. The State and petitioner Holly Hill Hospital agree with respondent that the findings made in the involuntary commitment order were insufficient and urge our Court to reverse the trial -5court s order and remand this case to the trial court for the making of appropriate findings of fact. We first note that even though the term for respondent s involuntary commitment has passed, a prior discharge will not render questions challenging the involuntary commitment proceeding moot. When the challenged order may form the basis for future commitment or may cause other collateral legal consequences for the respondent, an appeal of that order is not moot. In re Allison, 216 N.C. App. 297, 299, 715 S.E.2d 912, 914 (2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted). On appeal of a commitment order our function is to determine whether there was any competent evidence to support the facts recorded in the commitment order and whether the trial court s ultimate findings of mental illness and dangerous to self or others were supported by the facts recorded in the order. We do not consider whether the evidence of respondent s mental illness and dangerousness was clear, cogent and convincing. It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the competent evidence offered in a particular case met the burden of proof. In re Collins, 49 N.C. App. 243, 246, 271 S.E.2d 72, 74 (1980) (citations omitted). Section 122C-268(j) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that [t]o support an inpatient commitment order, -6the court shall find by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the respondent is mentally ill and dangerous to self, as defined in G.S. 122C-3(11)a., or dangerous to others, as defined in G.S. 122C-3(11)b. The court shall record the facts that support its findings. N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 122C-268(j) (2013). In the case sub judice, the trial court checked the box on the printed form that reads [b]ased on the evidence presented, the Court by clear, cogent and convincing evidence finds these other facts: the respondent contests commitment. Stipulate to mental illness, a danger to self, and others, and in need of treatment. The trial court did not make additional findings of fact or record any facts to supporting these findings. It is well established that we may not determine whether the evidence was sufficient because the trial court failed to make any findings of fact based on the evidence presented at the 27 June 2013 hearing for us to review. N.C. App. 433, 437, 667 S.E.2d 302, See In re Booker, 193 304-305 (2008). Thus, because the trial court s order is insufficient to support the trial court s determination that respondent was dangerous to himself and to others, we reverse the trial court s order and remand this case to the appropriate findings of fact. trial court for the making of See In re Allison, 216 N.C. App. -7at 300, 715 S.E.2d at 915 (reversing and remanding for appropriate findings when the trial court failed to make written findings of fact or failed to incorporate by reference a physician s report in the respondent s involuntary commitment order). III. Conclusion Because the involuntary commitment order contained insufficient findings of fact to support its determination that respondent was mentally ill and dangerous to himself and others, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand this case to the trial court for the making of appropriate findings. Reversed and remanded. Judges STEELMAN and ERVIN concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
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.
