Involuntary mental-health treatment; Person requiring treatment; MCL 330.1401; Clear & convincing evidence; MCL 330.1465; Great weight of the evidence; Request for remand; MCR 7.211(C)(1); Untimely motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict & new trial; MCR 7.216(B); MCR 2.610(A)(1); MCR 2.611(B)

The court held that the jury’s verdict finding respondent was a person requiring involuntary mental-health treatment was not against the great weight of the evidence. The petition was filed after respondent sent several emails to the sheriff’s office containing allegations about his father, conspiracy theories, Morgellons-related symptoms, and excerpts of ChatGPT conversations. Two doctors concluded respondent had a delusional or mood and thought disorder, and a jury found he was mentally ill and a person requiring treatment. On appeal, the court held that the evidence “clearly supported the jury verdict.” It noted the psychiatrist testified respondent had a mood disorder, a thought disorder, paranoia, and a “delusional thought process,” and that he was verbally aggressive, insulted staff, and prompted complaints from other patients. The court also relied on the deputy’s testimony that respondent could become “very aggressive” about refusing treatment and that officers approached him in groups because of his aggression. Although the psychiatrist and deputy testified respondent did not express homicidal or suicidal thoughts, the court concluded the evidence did not “preponderate against the jury’s verdict.” It also denied remand because respondent did not show what factual record needed development, and it denied permission to file late posttrial motions because he failed to show “good cause for his delay” or entitlement to relief. Affirmed.