addington
texas
argued
november
decided
april
appellant
mother
filed
petition
indefinite
commitment
state
mental
hospital
accordance
texas
law
governing
involuntary
commitments
appellant
long
history
confinements
mental
emotional
disorders
state
trial
instructed
jury
determine
whether
based
clear
unequivocal
convincing
evidence
appellant
mentally
ill
required
hospitalization
welfare
protection
protection
others
appellant
contended
trial
employed
beyond
reasonable
doubt
standard
proof
jury
found
appellant
mentally
ill
required
hospitalization
trial
ordered
commitment
indefinite
period
texas
appeals
reversed
agreeing
appellant
issue
texas
reversed
appeals
decision
reinstated
trial
judgment
concluding
preponderance
evidence
standard
proof
civil
commitment
proceeding
satisfied
due
process
since
trial
improper
instructions
instant
case
benefited
appellant
error
harmless
held
clear
convincing
standard
proof
required
fourteenth
amendment
civil
proceeding
brought
state
law
commit
individual
involuntarily
indefinite
period
state
mental
hospital
pp
individual
liberty
interest
outcome
civil
commitment
proceeding
weight
gravity
compared
state
interests
providing
care
citizens
unable
emotional
disorders
care
protecting
community
dangerous
tendencies
mentally
ill
due
process
requires
state
justify
confinement
proof
substantial
mere
preponderance
evidence
pp
due
process
require
use
beyond
reasonable
doubt
standard
proof
applicable
criminal
prosecutions
delinquency
proceedings
winship
distinguished
standard
inappropriate
civil
commitment
proceedings
given
uncertainties
psychiatric
diagnosis
may
impose
burden
state
meet
thereby
erect
unreasonable
barrier
needed
medical
treatment
state
required
employ
standard
proof
may
completely
undercut
efforts
legitimate
interests
state
patient
served
civil
commitments
pp
meet
due
process
demands
commitment
proceedings
standard
proof
inform
factfinder
proof
must
greater
standard
applicable
categories
civil
cases
however
use
term
unequivocal
conjunction
terms
clear
convincing
jury
instructions
included
instructions
given
texas
state
case
constitutionally
required
although
free
use
standard
pp
burger
delivered
opinion
members
joined
except
powell
took
part
consideration
decision
case
martha
boston
appointment
argued
cause
appellant
brief
robert
plotkin
paul
friedman
james
hury
argued
cause
filed
brief
appellee
joel
klein
argued
cause
filed
brief
american
psychiatric
assn
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
ronald
soskin
filed
brief
national
center
law
handicapped
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
william
scott
attorney
general
bernard
carey
alan
grischke
special
assistant
attorney
general
henry
hauser
state
illinois
john
townsend
rich
national
assn
mental
health
et
al
chief
justice
burger
delivered
opinion
question
case
standard
proof
required
fourteenth
amendment
constitution
civil
proceeding
brought
state
law
commit
individual
involuntarily
indefinite
period
state
mental
hospital
seven
occasions
appellant
committed
temporarily
tex
rev
civ
stat
arts
vernon
supp
various
texas
state
mental
hospitals
committed
indefinite
periods
arts
austin
state
hospital
three
different
occasions
december
appellant
arrested
misdemeanor
charge
assault
threat
mother
country
state
mental
health
authorities
therefore
well
aware
history
mental
emotional
difficulties
appellant
mother
filed
petition
indefinite
commitment
accordance
texas
law
country
psychiatric
examiner
interviewed
appellant
custody
interview
issued
certificate
medical
examination
mental
illness
certificate
examiner
stated
opinion
appellant
mentally
ill
require
hospitalization
mental
hospital
art
vernon
appellant
retained
counsel
trial
held
jury
determine
accord
statute
whether
proposed
patient
mentally
ill
whether
requires
hospitalization
mental
hospital
welfare
protection
protection
others
whether
mentally
incompetent
art
vernon
state
offered
evidence
appellant
suffered
serious
delusions
often
threatened
injure
parents
others
involved
several
assaultive
episodes
hospitalized
caused
substantial
property
damage
apartment
parents
home
undisputed
facts
two
psychiatrists
qualified
experts
expressed
opinions
appellant
suffered
psychotic
schizophrenia
paranoid
tendencies
also
expressed
medical
opinions
appellant
probably
dangerous
others
explained
appellant
required
hospitalization
closed
area
treat
condition
past
refused
attend
outpatient
treatment
programs
escaped
several
times
mental
hospitals
appellant
contest
factual
assertions
made
state
witnesses
indeed
conceded
suffered
mental
illness
appellant
attempted
show
substantial
basis
concluding
probably
dangerous
others
trial
judge
submitted
case
jury
instructions
form
two
questions
based
clear
unequivocal
convincing
evidence
frank
addington
mentally
ill
based
clear
unequivocal
convincing
evidence
frank
addington
require
hospitalization
mental
hospital
welfare
protection
protection
others
jury
found
appellant
mentally
ill
required
hospitalization
others
welfare
trial
entered
order
committing
appellant
patient
austin
state
hospital
indefinite
period
appellant
appealed
order
texas
civil
appeals
arguing
among
things
standards
commitment
violated
substantive
due
process
rights
standard
proof
commitment
less
required
criminal
convictions
beyond
reasonable
doubt
violated
procedural
due
process
rights
civil
appeals
agreed
appellant
issue
reversed
judgment
trial
treatment
standard
proof
consider
issues
raised
appeal
appeal
texas
reversed
civil
appeal
decision
holding
relied
primarily
upon
previous
decision
state
turner
cert
denied
turner
texas
held
preponderance
evidence
standard
proof
civil
commitment
proceeding
satisfied
due
process
declined
adopt
criminal
law
standard
beyond
reasonable
doubt
primarily
questioned
whether
state
prove
exacting
standard
particular
person
dangerous
future
also
distinguished
civil
commitment
criminal
conviction
noting
texas
law
mentally
ill
patient
right
treatment
periodic
review
condition
immediate
release
longer
deemed
danger
others
finally
turner
rejected
clear
convincing
evidence
standard
texas
rules
procedure
juries
instructed
preponderance
standard
proof
reaffirming
turner
texas
case
concluded
trial
instruction
jury
although
conformity
legal
requirements
benefited
appellant
hence
error
harmless
accordingly
reinstated
judgment
trial
noted
probable
jurisdiction
oral
argument
became
clear
challenge
constitutionality
texas
statute
presented
appeal
authorized
accordingly
construing
papers
filed
petition
writ
certiorari
grant
petition
ii
function
standard
proof
concept
embodied
due
process
clause
realm
factfinding
instruct
factfinder
concerning
degree
confidence
society
thinks
correctness
factual
conclusions
particular
type
adjudication
winship
harlan
concurring
standard
serves
allocate
risk
error
litigants
indicate
relative
importance
attached
ultimate
decision
generally
speaking
evolution
area
law
produced
across
continuum
three
standards
levels
proof
different
types
cases
one
end
spectrum
typical
civil
case
involving
monetary
dispute
private
parties
since
society
minimal
concern
outcome
private
suits
plaintiff
burden
proof
mere
preponderance
evidence
litigants
thus
share
risk
error
roughly
equal
fashion
criminal
case
hand
interests
defendant
magnitude
historically
without
explicit
constitutional
requirement
protected
standards
proof
designed
exclude
nearly
possible
likelihood
erroneous
judgment
administration
criminal
justice
society
imposes
almost
entire
risk
error
upon
accomplished
requiring
due
process
clause
state
prove
guilt
accused
beyond
reasonable
doubt
winship
supra
intermediate
standard
usually
employs
combination
words
clear
cogent
unequivocal
convincing
less
commonly
used
nonetheless
stranger
civil
law
woodby
ins
see
also
mccormick
evidence
wigmore
evidence
ed
one
typical
use
standard
civil
cases
involving
allegations
fraud
wrongdoing
defendant
interests
stake
cases
deemed
substantial
mere
loss
money
jurisdictions
accordingly
reduce
risk
defendant
reputation
tarnished
erroneously
increasing
plaintiff
burden
proof
similarly
used
clear
unequivocal
convincing
standard
proof
protect
particularly
important
individual
interests
various
civil
cases
see
woodby
ins
supra
deportation
chaunt
denaturalization
schneiderman
denaturalization
candor
suggests
degree
efforts
analyze
lay
jurors
understand
concerning
differences
among
three
tests
nuances
judge
instructions
law
may
well
largely
academic
exercise
directly
relevant
empirical
studies
indeed
ultimate
truth
standards
proof
affect
decisionmaking
may
well
unknowable
given
factfinding
process
shared
countless
thousands
individuals
throughout
country
probably
assume
difference
preponderance
evidence
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
probably
better
understood
either
relation
intermediate
standard
clear
convincing
evidence
nonetheless
even
particular
catchwords
always
make
great
difference
particular
case
adopting
standard
proof
empty
semantic
exercise
tippett
maryland
sobeloff
concurring
part
dissenting
part
cert
dismissed
sub
nom
murel
baltimore
city
criminal
cases
involving
individual
rights
whether
criminal
civil
standard
proof
minimum
reflects
value
society
places
individual
liberty
iii
considering
standard
govern
civil
commitment
proceeding
must
assess
extent
individual
interest
involuntarily
confined
indefinitely
state
interest
committing
emotionally
disturbed
particular
standard
proof
moreover
must
mindful
function
legal
process
minimize
risk
erroneous
decisions
see
mathews
eldridge
speiser
randall
repeatedly
recognized
civil
commitment
purpose
constitutes
significant
deprivation
liberty
requires
due
process
protection
see
jackson
indiana
humphrey
cady
gault
specht
patterson
moreover
indisputable
involuntary
commitment
mental
hospital
finding
probable
dangerousness
self
others
engender
adverse
social
consequences
individual
whether
label
phenomena
stigma
choose
call
something
else
less
important
recognize
occur
significant
impact
individual
state
legitimate
interest
parens
patriae
powers
providing
care
citizens
unable
emotional
disorders
care
state
also
authority
police
power
protect
community
dangerous
tendencies
mentally
ill
texas
mental
health
code
however
state
interest
confining
individuals
involuntarily
mentally
ill
pose
danger
others
since
preponderance
standard
creates
risk
increasing
number
individuals
erroneously
committed
least
unclear
extent
state
interests
furthered
using
preponderance
standard
commitment
proceedings
expanding
concern
society
problems
mental
disorders
reflected
fact
recent
years
many
enacted
statutes
designed
protect
rights
mentally
ill
however
one
state
statute
permits
involuntary
commitment
mere
preponderance
evidence
miss
code
ann
supp
texas
state
concluded
standard
satisfies
due
process
attribute
lack
concern
rather
belief
varying
standards
tend
produce
comparable
results
noted
earlier
however
standards
proof
important
symbolic
meaning
well
practical
effect
one
time
another
every
person
exhibits
abnormal
behavior
might
perceived
symptomatic
mental
emotional
disorder
fact
within
range
conduct
generally
acceptable
obviously
behavior
basis
compelled
treatment
surely
none
confinement
however
possible
risk
factfinder
might
decide
commit
individual
based
solely
isolated
instances
unusual
conduct
loss
liberty
calls
showing
individual
suffers
something
serious
demonstrated
idiosyncratic
behavior
increasing
burden
proof
one
way
impress
factfinder
importance
decision
thereby
perhaps
reduce
chances
inappropriate
commitments
ordered
individual
asked
share
equally
society
risk
error
possible
injury
individual
significantly
greater
possible
harm
state
conclude
individual
interest
outcome
civil
commitment
proceeding
weight
gravity
due
process
requires
state
justify
confinement
proof
substantial
mere
preponderance
evidence
appellant
urges
hold
due
process
requires
use
criminal
law
standard
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
argues
rationale
winship
holding
criminal
law
standard
proof
required
delinquency
proceeding
applies
equal
force
civil
commitment
proceeding
winship
background
gradual
assimilation
juvenile
proceedings
traditional
criminal
prosecutions
declined
allow
state
civil
labels
good
intentions
obviate
need
criminal
due
process
safeguards
juvenile
courts
saw
controlling
difference
loss
liberty
stigma
conviction
adult
delinquency
adjudication
juvenile
winship
recognized
basic
issue
whether
individual
fact
committed
criminal
act
proceedings
meaningful
distinctions
two
proceedings
required
state
prove
juvenile
act
intent
beyond
reasonable
doubt
significant
reasons
different
standards
proof
called
civil
commitment
proceedings
opposed
criminal
prosecutions
civil
commitment
state
power
exercised
punitive
sense
unlike
delinquency
proceeding
winship
civil
commitment
proceeding
sense
equated
criminal
prosecution
cf
woodby
ins
addition
beyond
reasonable
doubt
standard
historically
reserved
criminal
cases
unique
standard
proof
prescribed
defined
constitution
regarded
critical
part
moral
force
criminal
law
winship
hesitate
apply
broadly
casually
noncriminal
cases
cf
ibid
heavy
standard
applied
criminal
cases
manifests
concern
risk
error
individual
must
minimized
even
risk
guilty
might
go
free
patterson
new
york
full
force
idea
apply
civil
commitment
may
true
erroneous
commitment
sometimes
undesirable
erroneous
conviction
wigmore
evidence
chadbourn
rev
however
even
though
erroneous
confinement
avoided
first
instance
layers
professional
review
observation
patient
condition
concern
family
friends
generally
provide
continuous
opportunities
erroneous
commitment
corrected
moreover
true
release
genuinely
mentally
ill
person
worse
individual
failure
convict
guilty
one
suffering
debilitating
mental
illness
need
treatment
neither
wholly
liberty
free
stigma
see
chodoff
case
involuntary
hospitalization
mentally
ill
psychiatry
schwartz
myers
astrachan
psychiatric
labeling
rehabilitation
mental
patient
arch
psychiatry
said
therefore
much
better
mentally
ill
person
go
free
mentally
normal
person
committed
finally
initial
inquiry
civil
commitment
proceeding
different
central
issue
either
delinquency
proceeding
criminal
prosecution
latter
cases
basic
issue
straightforward
factual
question
accused
commit
act
alleged
may
factual
issues
resolve
commitment
proceeding
factual
aspects
represent
beginning
inquiry
whether
individual
mentally
ill
dangerous
either
others
need
confined
therapy
turns
meaning
facts
must
interpreted
expert
psychiatrists
psychologists
given
lack
certainty
fallibility
psychiatric
diagnosis
serious
question
whether
state
ever
prove
beyond
reasonable
doubt
individual
mentally
ill
likely
dangerous
see
donaldson
concurring
opinion
blocker
app
opinion
concurring
result
see
also
tippett
maryland
sobeloff
concurring
part
dissenting
part
note
civil
commitment
mentally
ill
theories
procedures
harv
rev
note
due
process
development
criminal
safeguards
civil
commitment
adjudications
ford
rev
subtleties
nuances
psychiatric
diagnosis
render
certainties
virtually
beyond
reach
situations
standard
criminal
law
functions
realm
standard
addressed
specific
knowable
facts
psychiatric
diagnosis
contrast
large
extent
based
medical
impressions
drawn
subjective
analysis
filtered
experience
diagnostician
process
often
makes
difficult
expert
physician
offer
definite
conclusions
particular
patient
within
medical
discipline
traditional
standard
factfinding
reasonable
medical
certainty
trained
psychiatrist
difficulty
categorical
beyond
reasonable
doubt
standard
untrained
lay
juror
indeed
even
trained
judge
required
rely
upon
expert
opinion
forced
criminal
law
standard
proof
reject
commitment
many
patients
desperately
need
institutionalized
psychiatric
care
see
ibid
freedom
mentally
ill
person
purchased
high
price
practical
considerations
may
limit
constitutionally
based
burden
proof
demonstrated
standard
compromise
possible
prove
protects
rights
individual
state
required
guarantee
convictions
required
prove
guilt
beyond
doubt
however
ue
process
require
every
conceivable
step
taken
whatever
cost
eliminate
possibility
convicting
innocent
person
patterson
new
york
supra
state
required
employ
standard
proof
may
completely
undercut
efforts
legitimate
interests
state
patient
served
civil
commitments
chosen
either
legislatively
judicially
adopt
criminal
law
standard
gives
assurance
stringent
standard
proof
needed
even
adaptable
needs
essence
federalism
must
free
develop
variety
solutions
problems
forced
common
uniform
mold
substantive
standards
civil
commitment
may
vary
state
state
procedures
must
allowed
vary
long
meet
constitutional
minimum
see
monahan
wexler
definite
maybe
proof
probability
civil
commitment
law
human
behavior
share
standard
proof
involuntary
civil
commitment
proceedings
detroit
college
rev
conclude
unnecessary
require
apply
strict
criminal
standard
concluded
preponderance
standard
falls
short
meeting
demands
due
process
standard
required
turn
middle
level
burden
proof
strikes
fair
balance
rights
individual
legitimate
concerns
state
note
statute
employ
standard
clear
convincing
evidence
use
clear
cogent
convincing
evidence
require
clear
unequivocal
convincing
evidence
woodby
ins
dealing
deportation
schneiderman
dealing
denaturalization
held
clear
unequivocal
convincing
evidence
appropriate
standard
proof
term
unequivocal
taken
means
proof
admits
doubt
burden
approximating
exceeding
used
criminal
cases
issues
schneiderman
woodby
basically
factual
therefore
susceptible
objective
proof
consequences
individual
unusually
drastic
loss
citizenship
expulsion
concluded
standard
inappropriate
civil
commitment
proceedings
given
uncertainties
psychiatric
diagnosis
may
impose
burden
state
meet
thereby
erect
unreasonable
barrier
needed
medical
treatment
similarly
conclude
use
term
unequivocal
constitutionally
required
although
free
use
standard
meet
due
process
demands
standard
inform
factfinder
proof
must
greater
standard
applicable
categories
civil
cases
noted
earlier
trial
employed
standard
clear
unequivocal
convincing
evidence
appellant
commitment
hearing
jury
instruction
constitutionally
adequate
however
determination
precise
burden
equal
greater
clear
convincing
standard
hold
required
meet
due
process
guarantees
matter
state
law
leave
texas
accordingly
remand
case
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
vacated
remanded
footnotes
compare
morano
reexamination
development
reasonable
doubt
rule
rev
reasonable
doubt
represented
less
strict
standard
previous
rules
may
rules
evidence
rev
reasonable
doubt
constituted
stricter
rule
previous
ones
see
generally
underwood
thumb
scales
justice
burdens
persuasion
criminal
cases
yale
efforts
evaluate
effect
varying
standards
proof
jury
factfinding
see
jury
project
juries
rules
evidence
crim
rev
found
study
comparing
three
standards
proof
determine
juries
real
mock
apply
state
texas
confines
purpose
providing
care
designed
treat
individual
texas
said
state
turner
involuntary
mental
patient
entitled
treatment
periodic
recurrent
review
mental
condition
release
time
longer
presents
danger
others
haw
rev
stat
supp
idaho
code
supp
stat
ann
mont
rev
codes
ann
supp
okla
tit
supp
rev
stat
utah
code
ann
stat
supp
superintendent
worcester
state
hospital
hagberg
mass
proctor
butler
hodges
lausche
commissioner
public
welfare
cert
denied
see
also
super
app
div
cert
denied
denton
commonwealth
app
dicta
rev
stat
ann
rev
stat
supp
stat
del
code
tit
supp
code
rev
ch
supp
iowa
code
la
rev
stat
ann
west
supp
rev
stat
tit
stat
ann
neb
rev
stat
stat
ann
cent
code
ohio
rev
code
ann
supp
stat
tit
purdon
supp
code
supp
comp
laws
ann
stat
tit
supp
md
dept
health
mental
hygiene
reg
beverly
stat
supp
rev
code
state
ex
rel
hawks
lazaro
code
supp
code
ann
supp
see
webster
third
new
international
dictionary
noted
earlier
holding
harmless
error
see
supra