Keiser v. Sheppard
| Decision Date | 28 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | 42904,Nos. 42893,s. 42893 |
| Citation | 292 Minn. 214,194 N.W.2d 286 |
| Parties | Ronald KEISER, Respondent, v. Dr. Charles SHEPPARD, Medical Director, Minnesota Security Hospital, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Minn.St.1965, § 526.10, required a finding by the probate judge himself that a patient was a psychopathic personality before the patient's commitment was authorized.
2. The probate court's jurisdiction to commit a patient under the psychopathic personality statute may be challenged by habeas corpus proceedings.
3. Whether a patient in psychopathic personality proceedings has a right to be confronted by witnesses is an issue which cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Keith Brownell, County Atty., David Naughtin, Asst. County Atty., Hibbing, for appellant.
Gislason, Alsop, Dosland & Hunter, and James Malecki, New Ulm, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, and PETERSON, JJ.
This matter is before the court on an alternative writ of prohibition consolidated with an appeal by the state from an order, entered in habeas corpus proceedings, which directs relator's release from a state hospital where he is confined under the so-called psychopathic personality law. The only issue is whether the applicable statute required the probate judge to concur in the findings of the examining doctors that relator was a psychopathic personality. Although the probate judge was of the opinion the relator did not require confinement, he felt bound by the decision of the examining doctors and ordered commitment, noting, however, his dissent. In habeas corpus proceedings the district court issued an order for relator's release, being of the opinion that without the probate judge's acquiescence the commitment order was invalid. Subsequently, we issued an alternative writ of prohibition enjoining the district court from giving effect to its order until the issues thus presented could be resolved by this court. We hold that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to order relator's commitment without a finding by the court that relator was a psychopathic personality within the meaning of Minn.St.1965, § 526.10.
These proceedings stem from a charge of murder in the first degree against relator arising out of the death of one Joanne Anderson on April 23, 1965. 1 That charge was ultimately dismissed. Thereafter, proceedings were begun under §§ 526.09 to 526.11, relating to psychopathic personalities. The probate judge of St. Louis County appointed two doctors to assist in the examination of relator, resulting in findings dated July 21, 1966, in the following language:
'From the examination so made by us and upon due consideration of all the evidence received, we find and determine that the above named patient is a psychopathic personality and the court finds that commitment to an institution for the care of the mentally ill--senile--inebriate and psychopathic personality persons is necessary for the welfare and protection of the patient and society.
'Dated at Duluth, Minnesota this 21st day of July 1966.
'J. E. HAAVIK, M.D.
G. M. COWAN, M.D.
GEORGE CRAGO--Dissents Judge of Probate'
In July 1970, relator petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. That court held that the commitment was voidable because the probate judge did not concur in the findings. Relator was ordered released from confinement. A writ of prohibition followed.
1. The pertinent sections of the applicable statute, Minn.St.1965, § 526.10, are as follows: 2
The state argues that § 526.10 adopted by reference Minn.St.1965, §§ 525.752 and 525.753 (subsequently repealed). These statutes directed that the doctors and the judge report their findings, and if the patient was found to be mentally ill the court was authorized to order...
To continue reading
Request your trial