Involuntary mental health treatment; Person requiring treatment; MCL 330.1401; Due process; Jury instructions; Mental health records completeness; MCL 330.1141; Right to an independent clinical evaluation; MCL 330.1463; Waiver; Nexteer Auto Corp v Mando Am Corp; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v Washington; In re Londowski; Involuntary servitude claim; United States v Kozminski

The court held that respondent received due process and that the evidence supported the jury’s finding that he was a “person requiring treatment” under MCL 330.1401(1)(c), so the order continuing involuntary treatment was proper. The court concluded that there was no instructional error where the jury was told it could accept “all, part, or none” of the experts’ opinions and that arguments of counsel were not evidence, which cured any claimed bias in counsel’s comments. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial because the psychiatrist and psychologist did not give false testimony. Their opinions were grounded in respondent’s schizophrenia diagnosis, his delusional belief that he owned the university, his refusal to eat due to fears of poisoning, and his admission that he would not take medication without a court order. The court further held that any failure by the hospital to file handwritten corrections did not render the medical record incomplete where an expert testified that such notes would not have changed his views and credibility was for the jury. It concluded that respondent waived his statutory right to an independent evaluation by affirmatively proceeding to trial, that counsel’s strategic choices were not deficient under Strickland, and that the treatment order did not impose “involuntary servitude” because it did not require compulsory work under threat of legal sanction. Affirmed.