Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed July 31, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

 NO. 14-02-00955-CV

NO. 14-02-00956-CV

____________

NATHAN DALE CAMPBELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 727,765 and 729,925

C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N

I join in the Court=s judgment and all aspects of its opinion except for part C(2).  As to that part of the opinion, I agree with the Court=s conclusion the trial court did not err in conditioning the outpatient treatment jury question on a negative answer to the inpatient treatment question.  But I would not decide whether the trial judge could have ordered outpatient treatment based on a jury finding supporting inpatient treatment, or what she might have done with jury findings supporting both.  The trial judge here ordered inpatient treatment; I would reserve ruling on when she can order outpatient treatment until she does.

The necessary and proper form for submitting jury questions in a civil case lies within the trial judge=s considerable discretion.  State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau, 951 S.W.2d 444, 451 (Tex. 1997).  In his very brief argument, appellant claims the submission here was error because it took away the trial judge=s discretion to order outpatient treatment even if the jury made the necessary findings for inpatient treatment.  In other words, the trial judge abused her discretion by taking away her discretion.  For obvious reasons, he cites no cases ever adopting such an argument.

Accordingly, I concur with the Court=s disposition only in part C(2), and join in the remainder of its opinion.

/s/        Scott Brister

Chief Justice

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed July 31, 2003.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Fowler and Senior Chief Justice Murphy^[1].