In Re MH-2008-000867

Summary

The court held that admitting an evaluating physician’s telephonic testimony in a civil mental-health commitment hearing did not violate procedural due process. Because the treatment order had expired, the court nevertheless reached the merits under the exception for issues of statewide importance capable of evading review. The court rejected applying the criminal Confrontation Clause framework and instead applied a flexible balancing test focused on the patient’s liberty interest, the risk of error, and the State’s interests.