Madsen v. Obermann

• Decision Date: 02 April 1946
• Docket Number: 46819.
• Citation: Madsen v. Obermann, 237 Iowa 461, 22 N.W.2d 350 (Iowa 1946)
• Parties: MADSEN v. OBERMANN et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

22 N.W.2d 350

237 Iowa 461

MADSEN v. OBERMANN et al.

No. 46819.

Supreme Court of Iowa

April 2, 1946

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

A R. Nelson, Co. Atty., of Cherokee, B. J. Maxwell, Co. Atty of Tipton, and R. S. Milner, of Cedar Rapids, for appellant and Cedar County, Iowa, appellee and cross-appellant.

John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Larson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee and cross-appellant State of Iowa.

Edward L. O'Connor, of Iowa City, and J. F. Loughlin, of Cherokee, for appellee.

OLIVER Justice.

Appellee Ruth Madsen was born in 1915 and married Henry Madsen in 1934. They lived on a farm in Cedar County, Iowa, with their two children, Richard, born in 1935 and Ronald, born in 1938. June 2, 1942, the Commission of Insanity of Cedar County found Mrs. Madsen to be insane, and committed her to the State Hospital for the Insane at Mount Pleasant. There she twice attempted suicide and twice escaped. July 21, 1942, she was paroled to her husband with the understanding she would be given a physical examination and would be placed in a private mental sanitorium in Des Moines. She was taken to Rochester, Minnesota, for the physical examination and also went with her husband on a trip to South Dakota. Although she continued to exhibit evidence of insanity she was not placed in the sanatorium but lived at home with her husband and children. For the purposes of this case it may be said the record indicates that in the early morning of September 14, 1942, she shot and killed her husband while he was sleeping and that for ten days thereafter she wandered through the countryside. She was apprehended and on September 28, 1942, was charged with murder in a county attorney's information. Shortly thereafter the District Court of Cedar County made an order for her return to the State Hospital at Mount Pleasant, reciting that Mrs. Madsen had been merely paroled therefrom and not discharged as cured and said court had no jurisdiction to try her upon such charge. She was returned to Mount Pleasant and about October 1, 1942, was transferred to the State Hospital at Independence.

In September, 1944, the District Court of Buchanan County denied her release in a habeas corpus case, finding she had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she had been restored to reason and was then sane. Thereafter, in September, 1944, Mrs. Madsen was transferred to the Cherokee State Hospital. In August, 1945, she petitioned the District Court of Cherokee County for a writ of habeas corpus directed to appellant Obermann, Superintendent of Cherokee State Hospital for the Insane, alleging, 'she has been restored to reason and is now, and has been for some time last past absolutely sane and mentally normal in all respects.' The writ was issued. The return of appellant Obermann denied said allegations and asserted 'she is now insane, and that she is now a fit subject for detention.' Trial to the court resulted in judgment September 11, 1945, finding she 'is now sane' and ordering her discharge from custody. See section 3577, Code of Iowa 1939. Thereupon the Sheriff of Cedar County took her into custody on the murder charge and held her in the Cedar county jail.

October 6, 1945, defendant Obermann appealed to this court and State of Iowa and Cedar County, who came into this case in some manner not shown in the record, also appealed.

Shortly thereafter appellants applied to this court for an order staying the judgment of the Cherokee District Court discharging Mrs. Madsen from the Cherokee Hospital, which application this court denied.

October 23, 1945, upon application of the county attorney of Cedar County, the District Court of Cedar County dismissed the murder charge. We are advised Mrs. Madsen has been at liberty since then.

Mrs. Madsen, six lay witnesses and three doctors, one of whom is a psychiatrist, testified for her. Each of these witnesses testified that, in his or her opinion, she had regained her sanity. Three psychiatrists, including appellant Obermann, expressed opinions to the contrary.

Witnesses for appellee testified her married life was unhappy and that she was in ill health and exhibited evidence of insanity shortly prior to her commitment by the Commission of Insanity. Some time after her transfer to the Independence Hospital her health and mental condition began to improve. She testified she felt so much different and friends and relatives testified there was a marked change in her and she became very much herself again and acted as a normal person.

She was placed in charge of the clothes room at the hospital, helped care for patients, usually helped when spinal anaesthetics were given, was called upon to help in a childbirth case and later helped take care of the baby.

She had done some haircutting at Independence and after her transfer to Cherokee in 1944, worked regularly in the beauty shop at that institution. The manager of the beauty shop (a former instructor in a school of cosmetology) testified Ruth Madsen picked up the work easily, quickly adjusted herself to new methods of operation and was doing very well. 'In my daily contact with Ruth out there, I have not noticed or observed anything odd or irrational in her conduct or behavior, and she appears in her behavior and conversation to be very much rational. I never looked upon her as being a crazy person. If I were to have met Ruth any place than at the shop I would not have known there is anything wrong with her, because she never loses her temper and has all the patience in the world with patients. She appears very much to have a sense of humor. Some of them are rather depressed at times and she will always try to help them out, to cheer them up. I have not observed in Ruth Madsen any oddity, any queerness of conduct or demeanor. She is nice to work with and she is capable and helpful and she never seems to tire. She just keeps on going until everything is cleaned up at the shop, and appears to be able to learn quickly.' '* * * I feel that she could become an accomplished beautician.' Mrs. Madsen testified: 'My plans for the future, if I am released, and had the children, I would first establish a home and I would like to take a cosmetology course if I could'.

Letters written by Mrs. Madsen during the latter part of her confinement appear to be those of a normal person, are well written and indicate she was corresponding with her elder son, then eight or nine years of age. The printed record of her testimony indicates Mrs. Madsen was an excellent witness at the trial.

Dr. Woods, a former Professor of Psychiatry at State University of Iowa Medical College, and now a consulting practitioner, testified her behavior in the courtroom was normal, that she maintained a rather remarkable poise during a searching examination under exceedingly trying circumstances, that her memory was very accurate, her utilization of her knowledge was quite good, normal, and that her general level of intelligence corresponded quite well with her culture level.

The principal disagreement between the expert witnesses was in their opinions as to the classification of Mrs. Madsen's mental ailment. Dr. Obermann and his witnesses diagnosed it as dementia praecox of the paranoid type, also referred to as schizophrenia, which, the experts testify, is practically incurable. Witnesses for Mrs. Madsen diagnosed it as of the depressed manic-depressive type, from which, experts on both sides agree, a person on recovery may never have another attack. Dr. Woods diagnosed it to have been of the depressed manic-depressive type. He testified also: 'I am certain that Ruth Madsen has no sign of schizophrenia now, and that none of the symptoms I have seen or gotten in the evidence indicate schizophrenia. She does not have dementia praecox of the paranoid type or any other type now. She has nothing. I consider her normal, as I said at the outstart. I do not feel that there would be the slightest danger to society if Ruth Madsen were released by this Court, or that she might commit some other act similar to the one she has been charged with. * * * I feel that at the present time Ruth Madsen is completely restored to sanity.'

1. One of the errors assigned by appellants stems from this diagnostic disagreement in the opinions of the experts. After an extended recital of the case history and symptoms of Mrs. Madsen's ailment, defendant Dr. Obermann testified he diagnosed it as dementia praecox, paranoid type. Upon cross-examination he was asked if, as a witness in State v. Perrin, whose history was similar to that of Mrs. Madsen, he had diagnosed Perrin's condition as manic-depressive. Dr. Obermann answered, 'The history isn't similar. There are a lot of differences.' In the next question the cross-examiner referred to the history of Perrin's ancestors. Opposing counsel objected 'to this question and all succeeding questions touching upon the relative phases of the Perrin situation as contrasted to the Madsen, as not proper cross-examination'. Ruling was reserved thereon, but the question was not answered. Counsel for appellee then stated these questions were being asked for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness and that in order to save time, the official shorthand reporter's transcript of all the testimony given by Dr. Obermann in the Perrin case was offered in evidence. Such offer was objected to as not proper cross-examination and for that no proper foundation had been laid.

Counsel for appellants later recalled Dr. Obermann, who was permitted to examine the transcript and testify as to what he asserted were differences between and distinguishing features of the two cases. Upon further cross-examination Dr. Obermann testified (without objection) that he and...