People ex rel. Pauling v. Misevic
| Decision Date | 24 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 38584,38584 |
| Citation | 32 Ill.2d 11,203 N.E.2d 393 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel. Paul PAULING, Appellant, v. Dr. Gabriel MISEVIC, Superintendent of Kankakee State Hospital, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Paul E. Thurlow, Joliet, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Cook County quashing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the relator, Paul Pauling, to the custody of respondent, Dr. Gabriel Misevic, who is superintendent of the Kankakee State Hospital. Section 5 of article VI of our constitution, S.H.A., as amended with effect from January 1, 1964, gives us jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Cf. People ex rel. Pauling v. Uffelman, 9 Ill.App.2d 412, 133 N.E.2d 310.
In June, 1954, Paul Pauling was indicted and tried in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of attempted murder, but a jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity when the offense was committed. At the same time, in conformity with section 12 of division II of the Criminal Code then in effect, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 38, par. 592,) the jury amde a further finding that he had not 'entirely and permanently recovered from such insanity.' The trial court, as further provided by the statute, thereupon entered an order transferring relator to the custody of the Public Welfare Department and directing his confinement in a security hospital until such time as 'in a subsequent hearing before a jury, the said Paul Pauling shall be determined by a verdict to have entirely recovered from such insanity.' Since that time relator has been confined in State hospitals, and it is undisputed that he was afflicted with schizophrenia, a form of insanity.
Nearly ten years later, in February, 1964, a brother of the relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in his behalf, alleging that relator is not now insane and praying for his release from confinement. In addition, it was alleged that relator had been examined by a licensed psychiatrist in November, 1963, and that the doctor reported: (1) That relator was no longer a source of danger to himself, his family or the community; and (2) that his continued confinement in a State hospital would bring no further benefit to the relator or society. A synopsis of the doctor's interview and his findings, attached to the petition as an exhibit, disclosed that relator has become blind during his confinement. Further, it is the reasonable intendment of the entire record that relator's brother, who resides on a farm, is willing to assume the burden of relator's care and custody.
A writ issued, returnable February 18, 1964, and on such date relator appeared in court with his counsel. However, after hearing arguments and permitting a State psychiatrist to testify that relator had not recovered his sanity and that he was still in need of 24-hour observation and treatment, the trial court quashed the writ and remanded relator to the custody of respondent. The precise basis for the order was that the petition was insufficient because it did not allege relator was 'entirely and permanently' recovered as provided in the statute under which he was committed. In such regard, relator's counsel has admitted, both below and in the briefs filed in this court, that schizophrenia is a mental disease from which one never entirely recovers.
At issue here is that portion of the statute which states: 'If after commitment such person in a subsequent hearing before a jury shall be determined by verdict to have entirely and permanently recovered from such insanity, he shall likewise be discharged from custody.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 38, par. 592, emphasis ours.) Due to the circumstance that schizophrenics never fully recover, relator concedes that he cannot meet the criteria of 'entire' recovery, or 'permanent' recovery within the construction placed upon the word 'permanent' in People v. Kadens, 399 Ill. 394, 400-401, 78 N.E.2d 289. What he asks is that this court either except schizophrenics from the operation of the statute, or that we c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perlstein v. Wolk
...Masterson v. The Highlands, L.L.C., 188 Ill.2d 546, 557, 243 Ill.Dec. 224, 723 N.E.2d 256 (1999), quoting People ex rel. Pauling v. Misevic, 32 Ill.2d 11, 15, 203 N.E.2d 393 (1964). Whether, under our rules of statutory construction, an absurd or unjust result should impact our reading and ......
-
Tedder v. Fairman
...63 Ill.2d 534, 543, 349 N.E.2d 31; see also Droste v. Kerner (1966), 34 Ill.2d 495, 503, 217 N.E.2d 73; People ex rel. Pauling v. Misevic (1964), 32 Ill.2d 11, 203 N.E.2d 393, cert. denied (1965), 380 U.S. 963, 85 S.Ct. 1107, 14 L.Ed.2d 154; Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. McCarthy (......
-
S.G., In re
...of the general power and obligation of the government as a whole to protect minors and the infirm. People ex rel. Pauling v. Misevic, 32 Ill.2d 11, 14, 203 N.E.2d 393 (1964); People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 411 Ill. 618, 623-24, 104 N.E.2d 769 (1952). For this reason, each branch of gove......
-
People v. Larson
...not seen fit to enact nor may it, by subtle construction, alter the plain meaning of the words employed. People ex rel. Pauling v. Misevic (1964), 32 Ill.2d 11, 15, 203 N.E.2d 393, cert. denied, 380 U.S. 963, 85 S.Ct. 1107, 14 L.Ed.2d 154; People v. Javurek (1976), 40 Ill.App.3d 218, 220, 3......