The Indiana Court of Appeals recently affirmed a regular commitment to a state hospital of a gravely disabled patient based on evidence that the patient’s symptoms impaired his judgment and his refusal to take medication and behavior demonstrated his inability to function independently. In re Commitment of G.S. v. Richmond State Hosp., No. 25A-MH-2033, 2026 WL 555535 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2026) (mem.).
Background
G.S. had a long history of mental health treatment and involvement with the criminal justice system dating back to childhood. In 2020, G.S. was admitted to Richmond State Hospital to undergo competency-restoration services after a criminal proceeding raised concerns about his ability to stand trial. IC 35-36-3-1. He completed the program which included medication and was released approximately three months later.
Several years later, in 2024, G.S. again underwent an evaluation to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. G.S. was found to be not competent, required competency-restoration services, and was returned to Richmond State Hospital in January 2025. Since he could not be restored to competency within six months, Richmond State Hospital petitioned for regular commitment pursuant to IC § 35-36-3-3(c).
At the commitment hearing, G.S.’s attending psychiatrist spoke about how G.S.’s symptoms demonstrated his disconnection from reality, how he refused medication, refused to participate in a competency evaluation and struggled to interact safely and appropriately with other patients and staff. The trial court found that evidence clearly and convincingly established G.S. was gravely disabled and ordered the regular commitment of G.S. IC § 12-26-7-5.
Grave Disability Analysis
G.S. appealed from this regular commitment and argued the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to support the finding he was gravely disabled or dangerous. The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed the commitment.
The appellate court emphasized several key aspects of the record including a long history of psychiatric hospitalizations. The Court specifically noted that G.S experienced periods where he was mentally stable and competent when he complied with his prescribed medication. By contrast, when G.S. refused treatment, he had multiple encounters with law enforcement, expressed delusional beliefs, demonstrated—by holding up signs during the commitment hearing—his disconnection from reality impacted his decision-making processes and could not function independently.
The Court also affirmed the trial court was entitled to assess the credibility of the witness and give more weight to the testimony of the expert physician than G.S. himself. Because the statutory requirements were satisfied on the basis of grave disability and mental illness, the Court determined that it did not need to address whether the evidence independently established that G.S. was dangerous.
Practical Takeaways
- IC § 35-36-3-3(c) Provides a Pathway to Civil Commitment when Competency Restoration Fails. When a criminal defendant receiving competency-restoration services refuses treatment or otherwise cannot have competency restored, the treating facility may petition for civil commitment under IC § 35-36-3-3(c) after a period of 90 days. This case highlights how providers can transition from competency restoration proceedings to civil commitment when restoration is no longer feasible.
- Evidence of Medication Non-Compliance Remains Critical in Proving Grave Disability. Courts closely examine whether a patient’s mental health improves with medication and deteriorates when treatment is refused. Documentation of treatment history, refusals of medication, delusional statements and behavior during proceedings can collectively satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard required for involuntary commitment.
If you have questions or would like more information about this topic, please contact:
- Ryan McDonald at (317) 429-3671 or rmcdonald@hallrender.com;
- Kathryn Daggett at (317) 977-1415 or kdaggett@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
