may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of:
Roger L. Zimmerman.
Filed August 12, 1997
Hennepin County District Court
File No. P8-96-60467
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Peter Stiehm, Assistant County Attorney, A-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Davies, Judge, and Foley, Judge.[*]
Appellant contests the trial court's judgment committing him to the Minnesota Security Hospital for an indeterminate period as mentally ill and dangerous to the public. Because the record supports the trial court's finding that appellant suffers from a substantial psychiatric disorder and the trial court did not err in concluding that appellant is mentally ill and dangerous, we affirm.
A trial court may judicially commit a person to the Minnesota Security Hospital when clear and convincing evidence shows that the person is mentally ill and dangerous to the public. See Minn. Stat. § § 253B.02, subd. 17; 253B.18, subd. 1 (1996); Schauer, 450 N.W.2d at 196. A "mentally ill person" is
any person who has an organic disorder of the brain or a substantial psychiatric disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory which grossly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or to reason or understand * * * .
Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 13.
Appellant contends the trial court clearly erred in determining that he is mentally ill because the record failed to show that he suffered from a substantial psychiatric disorder. He admits that paranoid schizophrenia is a substantial disorder, but argues that the trial court erred in finding that he suffered from that disorder. He claims the court-appointed examiner testified that his diagnosis "ruled out" paranoid schizophrenia.
The transcripts reveal, however, that the examiner did not "rule out" paranoid schizophrenia. Rather, the examiner stated at the initial hearing that appellant had a "psychotic disorder not otherwise specified with schizophrenia paranoid type to be ruled out." Later, at the review hearing, the examiner stated that appellant continued to suffer from a mental illness that had then "been diagnosed as schizophrenia paranoid type." The record also contained reports from two other doctors who diagnosed appellant as paranoid schizophrenic.
The trial court therefore had sufficient evidence to conclude that appellant suffered from a substantial psychotic disorder. Because the findings support the conclusion that appellant is mentally ill and dangerous, we affirm.
[ ]* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.