Order for mental-health treatment; Involuntary mental-health proceedings as civil proceedings; In re Londowski; Waiver of the right to a jury trial; Const 1963, art 1, § 14; MCR 5.740 (B); MCL 330.1458; The Mental Health Code (MHC)

The court held that because neither respondent nor her counsel demanded a jury trial, her right to one was automatically waived “pursuant to the plain language of Const 1963, art 1, § 14, MCR 5.740 (B) and MCL 330.1458[.]” She appealed the probate court’s order for her involuntary mental-health treatment, arguing that it erred by failing to ensure on the record that she waived her right to a jury trial. The court noted that involuntary “mental-health proceedings, or civil commitment proceedings, are civil proceedings.” Article 1, § 14 of the Michigan Constitution “provides that, ‘[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one of the parties in the manner prescribed by law.’” In civil commitment proceedings, MCR 5.740(B) “provides that, ‘An individual may demand a jury trial at any time before testimony is received at the hearing for which the jury is sought.’” Thus, the court found that the “Constitution, the [MHC], and the applicable court rules all clearly provide that a right to a jury trial is only available if a demand is made. If a respondent fails to make a proper demand, then the Michigan Constitution provides that the right to a jury trial is automatically waived.” That was the case here. And “because neither the Michigan Constitution nor the [MHC] require a formal waiver of this right, the probate court did not err.” Respondent argued that due to “the similar liberty interest implicated by involuntary commitments and criminal prosecutions, the formal waiver that is required in criminal proceedings should be required in civil commitment proceedings.” But neither the court, the Michigan Supreme Court, nor the U.S. “Supreme Court has ever held that civil commitment proceedings require the same procedural protections as criminal proceedings. In fact, [they] have indicated quite the opposite.” Affirmed.