IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF T.W., Respondent and Appellant

IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL HEALTH OF T.W., Respondent and Appellant. Oral Argument is set for April 30, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana. The State petitioned to involuntarily commit T.W. The court convened a jury trial at T.W.’s request. T.W. also requested, and was granted leave, to view the trial via videoconference with the video turned off and the audio muted instead of appearing in person. The jury found T.W. suffered from a mental disorder but did not require commitment. The court then dismissed the petition. After additional events occurred with T.W. over the weekend, the State filed a new petition for involuntary commitment the following Monday. T.W. again requested a jury trial. She also moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the State could not relitigate the same matter that a jury had just decided. The District Court denied the motion, concluding claim preclusion and issue preclusion did not apply. At the second jury trial, the State objected to T.W. viewing the trial via videoconference with the video turned off and the audio muted. The court ruled that T.W. could attend via videoconference but her audio and video must remain on. After jury selection, T.W. requested to waive further appearance; the court denied the request. The second jury found that T.W. suffered from a mental disorder and required involuntary commitment. On appeal, T.W. argues the District Court erred by forcing her to appear via videoconference because she has the statutory right to waive appearance. T.W. also argues the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss because the State’s second petition was barred by claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion; at a minimum, T.W. argues, the State should have been limited to introducing evidence only of events that occurred after the first jury’s decision.