dissent">EDELMAN, Justice,

dissenting.

According to the majority opinion, the operative portion of a correct jury charge would have differed from that submitted by the language enclosed in brackets:

will, [if not treated,] continued to suffer [is suffering] severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress and will continue to experience [substantial] deterioration of his ability to function independently [which is exhibited by an inability to provide for basic needs including food, clothing, health, or safety] and is unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.

The majority opinion concludes that the omission of the italicized portions probably had a profound effect on the jury’s deliberations because: (a) the issue of appellant’s ability to function independently was vigorously disputed; (b) conflicting evidence was presented on this issue; and (c) the jury sent out three different questions or requests to the judge and found in appellant’s favor as to whether he was likely to harm himself or others. I disagree with this conclusion in two respects.

First, under the charge submitted, the jury found that, if not treated, appellant would: (1) continue to suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress; (2) continue to experience deterioration of his ability to function independently; and (3) be unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether to submit to treatment. Because the language of the first and third elements would have been substantially unchanged in a correct submission, there is *14no uncertainty about the jury’s findings that, without treatment, appellant would remain severely disturbed and unable to make rational treatment decisions. The only question can be as to appellant’s ability to function independently.

Importantly, however, this was not ordinary civil commitment of someone who simply couldn’t take care of himself. Appellant was involuntarily committed because he had been found insane when he attacked his girlfriend with a knife, severely injuring her face and leaving her blind in one eye and with limited sight in the other. The issue in this proceeding was whether that commitment should be extended for another year. In the context of a decision of this type and magnitude, I do not believe that modifying the word, “deterioration” with “substantial” or adding the “basic needs” phrase would have materially changed the meaning of the overall inquiry to a rational jury.

Secondly, with regard to the evidence, the majority opinion acknowledges that the evidence of appellant’s behavior, even while under treatment, varied from being positive at times to being difficult, destructive of his own property, and irrational at others. In that appellant had failed to consistently function adequately with treatment, was there really a close issue on the overall question of his further commitment based on his ability to function independently without it? Despite how vigorously the issue was litigated and the jury’s questions, requests, and findings on harm, I would conclude that there was not and affirm the judgment of the trial court based on a lack of harm.

Citation profile

Appellate journey

How this case has been treated — in progress