In re J.R.

Summary

The court held that respondent's due process right to an impartial tribunal was not violated when the trial judge proceeded without the State's representative and questioned the petitioner's medical witness. A judge may call and question witnesses to clarify testimony and determine whether commitment criteria are met, so long as the judge does not advocate for a particular result or act as the accuser. The court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals and the thirty-day commitment order.