In re Care and Treatment of Donaldson, SC 87569.

Citation214 S.W.3d 331
Decision Date13 February 2007
Docket NumberNo. SC 87569.,SC 87569.
PartiesIn the Matter of the CARE AND TREATMENT OF Timothy S. DONALDSON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
214 S.W.3d 331
In the Matter of the CARE AND TREATMENT OF Timothy S. DONALDSON.
No. SC 87569.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
February 13, 2007.

[214 S.W.3d 332]

Nancy A. McKerrow, Emmett D. Queener, Office of the Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Alana M. Barragan-Scott and Michael W. Bradley, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.



The attorney general filed a petition to determine that Timothy S. Donaldson was a sexually violent predator. The matter was scheduled for trial.2 An insufficient number of jurors remained after the potential jurors were questioned, and the court sustained Donaldson's motion for a mistrial.3 The court did not try the case within 90 days after the mistrial. Donaldson filed a motion thereafter to dismiss, alleging that section 632.4954 required retrial within 90 days. The court overruled the motion, finding the administration of justice required the continuance beyond the 90-day period. The court found Donaldson to be a sexually violent predator and committed him to the department of mental health.

In addition to his dismissal argument, Donaldson argues that his rights are violated: (1) by a change in the policy of when a petition is filed by persons participating in MOSOP5 and (2) the admission into evidence that he suffers from antisocial

214 S.W.3d 333

personality disorder (ASPD). Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

Do the Statutes Require a Retrial to Occur or be Scheduled Within 90 Days?

Section 632.495 states (emphasis added):

The court or jury shall determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the person is a sexually violent predator. If such determination that the person is a sexually violent predator is made by a jury, such determination shall be by unanimous verdict of such jury. . . . If the court or jury is not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a sexually violent predator, the court shall direct the person's release. Upon a mistrial, the court shall direct that the person be held at an appropriate secure facility, including, but not limited to, a county jail, until another trial is conducted. . . . Any subsequent trial following a mistrial shall be held within ninety days of the previous trial, unless such subsequent trial is continued as provided in section 632.492.

Section 632.492 reads: "The trial may be continued upon the request of either party and a showing of good cause, or by the court on its own motion in the due administration of justice, and when the respondent will not be substantially prejudiced."

In construing statutes, a court ascertains the intent of the legislature from the language used and gives effect to that intent. Bachtel v. Miller County Nursing Home Dist., 110 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Mo. banc 2003). The statutes in this case do not require the judge to enter an order of continuance within any specific time period; in fact, they assume the case may be continued beyond the 90-day limit. The statutes only require that the court proceed in the due administration of justice and protect against substantial prejudice to respondent.

Donaldson notes that under the uniform mandatory disposition of detainers law, if the time limits for disposing of the detainer are not met, the court loses jurisdiction of the case. But this result is explicitly prescribed by section 217.460, RSMo 2000:

If the indictment, information or complaint is not brought to trial within the period, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction of such indictment, information or complaint, nor shall the untried indictment, information or complaint be of any further force or effect; and the court shall issue an order dismissing the same with prejudice.

Similarly, the interstate agreement on detainers law explicitly requires dismissal with prejudice if certain conditions are not met. Section 217.490, RSMo 2000. These sections amply demonstrate the legislature's ability to specify that dismissal is required if a time limit is not met....

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Murrell v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 2007
    ... 215 S.W.3d 96 ... In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Mark A. MURRELL, Appellant, ... STATE of Missouri, Respondent ... No. SC ... 71, 80, 112 S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992). The Supreme Court in O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975), held that a finding of "mental illness" alone ... ...
  • State v. Fournier, 2008-616.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 19 Marzo 2009
    ...but not jurisdictional. See, e.g., State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 828 (Fla.2002) (per curiam); In re Care and Treatment of Donaldson, 214 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo.2007) (en banc); In re Matthews, 345 S.C. 638, 550 S.E.2d 311, 314-15 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1062, 122 S.Ct. 1928, 152 L.Ed.2......
  • St. Louis Cnty. v. River Bend Estates Homeowners' Ass'n
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Septiembre 2013 the propriety of the trial court's action, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.” In re Care and Treatment of Donaldson, 214 S.W.3d 331, 334 (Mo. banc 2007).A. Evidence of Unwillingness to Sell and Heritage Value The first evidentiary error claimed by the cou......
  • Lampley v. Mo. Comm'n On Human Rights
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 26 Febrero 2019
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT