Main Menu

In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.

In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.,[1] the supreme court held that in involuntary commitment hearings the superior court must consider the condition of the patient at the time of the hearing for commitment, which can include evidence of past behavior or conditions likely to impact the patient’s mental or health or likelihood to cause harm. In 2015 G.L. was arrested following his alleged shooting of a loaded gun at people and buildings within his village. G.L. was ruled by the superior court mentally incompetent for any criminal proceedings, committing him to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for his competence restoration. Following his diagnosis for schizophrenia, a petition for a 30-day involuntary commitment, and another petition for a 90-day involuntary commitment, API petitioned for a 180-day involuntary commitment because of concerns G.L. was unlikely to take medication if released, which would quickly make him a danger to himself and/or others. After the superior court granted the 180-day involuntary commitment petition G.L. appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly relied on outdated information not current at the time of the commitment hearing. The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision, holding that while the trial court must consider the likelihood of harm from releasing the individual experiencing involuntary commitment proceedings at the time of the haring, the trial court may consider recent behaviors, conditions, and treatment history which can influence the chances of harm during the time of the proceedings. While the lower court considered testimony of those who have previously treated G.L. several months in the past, it correctly factored this information into its ultimate decision that G.L. was likely to not continue his medication upon discharge, which would quickly lead to a degradation in his mental state, likely leading him to cause harm to himself or others. Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held in involuntary commitment proceedings the trial court must consider whether the patient is mentally ill or likely to harm himself or others at the time of the hearing, but may consider evidence of recent behavior and treatment in making its conclusion.

[1] 449 P.3d 694 (Alaska 2019).

In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.

In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.,[1] the supreme court held that in involuntary commitment hearings the superior court must consider the condition of the patient at the time of the hearing for commitment, which can include evidence of past behavior or conditions likely to impact the patient’s mental or health or likelihood to cause harm. In 2015 G.L. was arrested following his alleged shooting of a loaded gun at people and buildings within his village. G.L. was ruled by the superior court mentally incompetent for any criminal proceedings, committing him to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for his competence restoration. Following his diagnosis for schizophrenia, a petition for a 30-day involuntary commitment, and another petition for a 90-day involuntary commitment, API petitioned for a 180-day involuntary commitment because of concerns G.L. was unlikely to take medication if released, which would quickly make him a danger to himself and/or others. After the superior court granted the 180-day involuntary commitment petition G.L. appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly relied on outdated information not current at the time of the commitment hearing. The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision, holding that while the trial court must consider the likelihood of harm from releasing the individual experiencing involuntary commitment proceedings at the time of the haring, the trial court may consider recent behaviors, conditions, and treatment history which can influence the chances of harm during the time of the proceedings. While the lower court considered testimony of those who have previously treated G.L. several months in the past, it correctly factored this information into its ultimate decision that G.L. was likely to not continue his medication upon discharge, which would quickly lead to a degradation in his mental state, likely leading him to cause harm to himself or others. Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held in involuntary commitment proceedings the trial court must consider whether the patient is mentally ill or likely to harm himself or others at the time of the hearing, but may consider evidence of recent behavior and treatment in making its conclusion.

[1] 449 P.3d 694 (Alaska 2019).