## Facts

- Ronald Lee Hawks was involuntarily committed to Huntington State Hospital in 1969 by a county mental hygiene commission for an indeterminate period under W. Va. Code § 27-5-4.
- The statute permitted involuntary hospitalization based on (1) likely injury to self or others, or (2) need for care or treatment coupled with inability to make responsible hospitalization decisions.
- Hawks alleged the 1969 proceeding lacked constitutionally adequate safeguards, including:
  - inadequate notice of the hearing and grounds for commitment;
  - absence from the hearing and no meaningful opportunity to be heard;
  - inability to confront and cross-examine witnesses concerning his mental condition;
  - lack of effective assistance of counsel; and
  - no verbatim record sufficient for meaningful review.
- In 1973, a re-examination hearing continued Hawks’s commitment; Hawks was present and represented but argued the statutory scheme and prior defects rendered continued confinement unlawful.
- Hawks filed an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality of his confinement and the constitutionality of the commitment procedures.

## Issues

1. What procedural due process protections are constitutionally required in involuntary civil commitment proceedings, including notice, presence, confrontation and cross-examination, counsel, and an adequate record for review.
2. What burden of proof due process requires for involuntary civil commitment.
3. Whether commitment based on broad paternalistic justifications under parens patriae, without narrowly defined criteria and safeguards, permits arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

## Decision

- The court granted habeas corpus relief.
- It held that involuntary civil commitment is a grave deprivation of liberty requiring stringent due process protections.
- It ruled that Hawks’s 1969 commitment was constitutionally defective due to inadequate notice, his absence, lack of confrontation and cross-examination, ineffective counsel, and the absence of a verbatim record.
- It adopted “clear, cogent and convincing” evidence as the required standard of proof for civil commitment.
- It found unconstitutional, as applied, statutory use and practices permitting commitment on paternalistic “benefit” grounds without sufficiently definite substantive criteria and procedural protections.
- It ordered that Hawks be released unless a new commitment proceeding was promptly conducted consistent with the required standards.

## Legal Principles

- Involuntary civil commitment requires robust procedural due process because it entails potentially indefinite, substantial restraints on liberty.
- Due process minima for commitment include:
  - timely, specific notice of the hearing, statutory grounds, and rights at stake;
  - the individual’s right to be present absent extraordinary circumstances;
  - the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses;
  - the right to counsel, including effective representation; and
  - a verbatim transcript or equivalent record sufficient for meaningful appellate review.
- The state must prove the statutory basis for commitment by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
- Parens patriae rationales cannot justify confinement on vague or purely paternalistic grounds; commitment requires defined criteria and reliable procedures to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

## Conclusion

The court held that West Virginia’s commitment procedures, as applied to Hawks, failed due process, required specified hearing safeguards and an adequate record, adopted a clear, cogent, and convincing burden of proof, and ordered Hawks’s release unless recommitted through constitutionally compliant proceedings.


State ex rel. Hawks v. Lazaro, 157 W. Va. 417, 202 S.E.2d 109 (W. Va. 1974)