IN RE: D.C-F. (2022)

¶ 1 Respondent D.C-F. appeals from an Involuntary Commitment Order entered 8 January 2021 committing her to an inpatient facility for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.

I. Background

¶ 2 On 7 December 2020, an affidavit and petition for involuntary commitment was filed alleging that Respondent was mentally ill and dangerous to self or others. On 8 January 2021, Respondent's involuntary commitment hearing was held in Durham County. The State was not represented by counsel at the hearing and Respondent's counsel objected to proceeding without a representative from the State. The trial court overruled Respondent's objection and called a psychiatrist as a witness. Respondent also testified in her defense.

¶ 3 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that Respondent was mentally ill and dangerous to herself and involuntarily committed her to up to thirty (30) days of inpatient treatment. Respondent appealed to our Court from the Involuntary Commitment Order.

II. Analysis

¶ 4 Respondent argues that “[w]hen the State refused to appear at [her] commitment hearing, the trial court violated [her] due process right to an impartial tribunal by assuming the role of prosecutor, eliciting all the State's evidence, and using that evidence to involuntarily commit [her.]”

¶ 5 We recognize that Respondent is raising this argument for preservation purposes. However, our Court is bound by our previous decision in In re C.G., 278 N.C. App 416, 2021-NCCOA-344. In In re C.G., we determined that the trial court did not violate the respondent's right to an impartial tribunal by calling the State's witness and asking open-ended questions. Id. at ¶ 25. Respondent raises the same issue here under similar facts. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's Involuntary Commitment Order. See In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (“Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.”).

III. Conclusion

¶ 6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's Order.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

DILLON, Judge.

Judges WOOD and JACKSON concur.