Matter of T.W.

Summary

The Court held that the State’s second involuntary-commitment petition was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel because it concerned T.W.’s later, substantially deteriorated condition, and the State could introduce earlier evidence to provide context for that condition. The Court further held that, after T.W. validly waived her presence and objected to compelled two-way audio-video, the District Court lacked authority to require her to appear visibly and audibly before the jury. The commitment order was therefore affirmed as to the preclusion and evidentiary rulings but reversed because of the compelled remote appearance.