{ "id": 8548106, "name": "In the Matter of: CHARLES GOSSETT BALLARD", "name_abbreviation": "In re Ballard", "decision_date": "1977-10-05", "docket_number": "No. 7625DC1022", "first_page": "228", "last_page": "230", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 N.C. App. 228" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "228 S.E. 2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 N.C. App. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547380 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/31/0057-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 244, "char_count": 3846, "ocr_confidence": 0.78, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.822123157029673e-08, "percentile": 0.4975263036570858 }, "sha256": "c66515974cfc6924f2974ffd966fa94e863b656ec3da68ad0ba716928d506004", "simhash": "1:ef649e8c5ea7fabe", "word_count": 623 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "In the Matter of: CHARLES GOSSETT BALLARD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nRespondent does not except to that part of the order finding that he is mentally ill. Through counsel, however, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the court\u2019s finding that he was imminently dangerous to himself or others.\nTo support a recommitment order, the court is required to find \u201cby clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the respondent is mentally ill. .. and imminently dangerous to himself or others, and in need of continued hospitalization.\u201d G.S. 122-58.11(d). The court must record the facts which support its findings.\nThe thrust of respondent\u2019s argument appears to be as follows: It is very difficult to predict potentially dangerous behavior. The Court should, therefore, require that any potentially dangerous behavior be evidenced by a recent overt act.\nThis Court has previously rejected respondent\u2019s argument.\n\u201cThe words \u2018imminently dangerous\u2019 simply mean that a person poses a danger to himself or others in the immediate future. An overt act may be clear, cogent and convincing evidence which will support a finding of imminent danger, but we cannot agree that there must be an overt act to establish imminent dangerousness.\u201d In re Salem, 31 N.C. App. 57, 61, 228 S.E. 2d 649, 652 (1976).\nThere is ample evidence in the record to support the judge\u2019s findings. It includes evidence of an unprovoked and potentially deadly assault with a cane on his daughter-in-law while she was lying in bed. While a patient at the hospital, respondent concealed potentially dangerous weapons about his person \u2014 a knife and a soft drink bottle. At the time the bottle was discovered, he explained he \u201cwere going to get them before they got him.\u201d During an examination by a hospital physician about three weeks before the hearing, respondent explained that he had whipped his son and daughter-in-law because they were going to bring him back to the hospital and that they were \u201cno account.\u201d Respondent has suffered irreversible brain damage and is paranoid. In the doctor\u2019s opinion he is imminently dangerous to himself or others.\nThe order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Hedrick and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery III, for the State.", "Prentiss Anne Allen, for respondent appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the Matter of: CHARLES GOSSETT BALLARD\nNo. 7625DC1022\n(Filed 5 October 1977)\n1. Insane Persons \u00a7 1.2\u2014 imminent danger \u2014 overt act not necessary\nEvidence of a recent overt act is not necessary to a finding that a respondent is imminently dangerous to himself or others.\n2. Insane Persons \u00a7 1.2\u2014 imminent danger \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe court\u2019s finding that respondent was imminently dangerous to himself or others was supported by evidence that respondent had assaulted his daughter-in-law while she was lying in bed; respondent explained that he had whipped his son and daughter-in-law because they were going to take him back to the hospital and were \u201cno account\u201d; while a patient in a State hospital, defendant concealed a knife and soft drink bottle on his person; at the time the bottle was discovered, respondent explained that he was \u201cgoing to get them before they got him\u201d; and respondent has suffered irreversible brain damage and is paranoid.\nAPPEAL by respodnent from Edens, Judge. Judgment entered 21 October 1976 in District Court, BURKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 September 1977.\nRespondent is an elderly patient at Broughton Hospital in Morganton. The Chief of Medical Services at that facility determined that he was in need of further care and treatment beyond the period for which he was committed. A hearing was held, and the judge found that respondent was mentally ill, imminently dangerous to himself or others and in need of continued hospitalization. He ordered that respondent be recommitted for a period not to exceed one year.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery III, for the State.\nPrentiss Anne Allen, for respondent appellant." }, "file_name": "0228-01", "first_page_order": 256, "last_page_order": 258 }