People v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 18 May 1942
• Docket Number: No. 75.,75.
• Citation: 4 N.W.2d 18,301 Mich. 584
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CHAPMAN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

301 Mich. 584

4 N.W.2d 18

PEOPLE

v.CHAPMAN.

No. 75.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 18, 1942.

Bert Chapman, charged with an act of gross indecency, was found to be a criminal sexual psychopathic person and was ordered confined in an appropriate institution, and he appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Joseph H. Collins, judge.

Before the Entire Bench, except WIEST, J.

John G. Cross, of Detroit, for appellant.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Daniel J. O'Hara, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joe Gates, Pros. Atty., of Howell, for appellee.

STARR, Justice.

Defendant was arrested in September, 1940, arraigned before a justice of the peace and bound over to circuit court, where an information was filed charging him with an ‘act of gross indecency’ under Michigan Penal Code, Act No. 328, § 338, Pub.Acts 1931, Comp.Laws Supp. 1940, § 17115-338, Stat. Ann. § 28.570.

Before trial on such charge in circuit court the prosecuting attorney of Livingston county filed a petition under Act No. 165, Pub.Acts 1939, Comp.Laws Supp. 1940 § 6991-1 et seq., Stat.Ann.1941 Cum.Supp. § 28.967(1) et seq., in this opinion referred to as ‘the statute,’ to determine whether defendant was a ‘criminal sexual psychopathic person.’ As defendant attacks the constitutionality of the statute and the legality of the proceedings instituted thereunder, we quote such act in full:

‘An act to define criminal sexual psychopathic persons and to provide for the commitment of such persons and the procedure therefor.

‘ The people of the State of Michigan enact:

‘Sec. 1. Any person who is suffering from a mental disorder and is not insane or feeble-minded, which mental disorder has existed for a period of not less than 1 year and is coupled with criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenses is hereby declared to be a criminal sexual psychopathic person.

‘Sec. 2. Jurisdiction of criminal sexual psychopathic persons charged with criminal offense is vested in the circuit courts of the state, the recorders court of the city of Detroit, and the superior court of the city of Grand Rapids.

‘Sec. 3. When any person is charged with a criminal offense and it shall appear that such person is a criminal sexual psychopathic person, then the prosecuting attorney of such county, or the attorney general, may file with the clerk of the court in the same proceeding wherein such person stands charged with such criminal offense, a statement in writing setting forth facts tending to show that such person is a criminal sexual psychopathic person.

‘Sec. 4. Upon the filing of such petition, the court shall appoint 2 qualified psychiatrists to make a personal examination of such alleged criminal sexual psychopathic person who shall file with the court a report in writing of the results of their examination together with their conclusions and recommendations. In the event that both of such psychiatrists in such report state their conclusions to the effect that such person is a criminal sexual psychopathic person, then proceedings shall be had as provided in this act prior to trial of such person upon the criminal offense with which he then stands charged.

‘Sec. 5. Upon a hearing held for that purpose the court without a jury, unless a jury is demanded prior to said hearing and within 15 days after the filing of the last of said reports, shall ascertain whether or not such person is a criminal sexual psychopathic person. Upon such hearing it shall be competent to introduce evidence of the commission by such person of any number of similar crimes together with the record of the punishment inflicted therefor. If such person is determined to be a criminal sexual psychopathic person, then the court shall commit such person to the state hospital commission to be confined in an appropriate state institution under the jurisdiction of either the state hospital commission or the department of correction, until such person shall have fully and permanently recovered from such psychopathy.

‘Sec. 6. The state hospital commission shall have the right to release such person upon parole to such persons and under such conditions as his condition, in the judgment of the state hospital commission, merits.

‘Sec. 7. Such criminal sexual psychopathic person shall be discharged only after he shall have fully recovered from such psychopathy. At any time, when he shall appear to have so recovered, a petition in writing setting forth the facts showing such recovery may be filed with the clerk of the court by which he was committed and such court shall proceed to determine whether or not he has fully recovered from such psychopathy. Jury trial of such issue may be had, if demanded before the trial of said issue and within 15 days after the filing of such petition. If, following such hearing, such person is found to have fully recovered from such psychopathy, then the court shall order such person to be discharged from the custody of the state hospital commission. In the event such person is found to have not fully recovered from such psychopathy, then the court shall order such person to be returned to the custody of the state hospital commission to be held under the previous commitment of such person.

‘Sec. 8. No person who is found in such original hearing to be a criminal sexual psychopathic person and such finding having become final, may thereafter be tried upon the offense with which he originally stood charged in the committing court at the time of the filing of the original petition.

‘Sec. 9. The state shall defray all expenses of such person while so confined in a state institution and may recover the amount so paid from such person.’

In pursuance of the provisions of section 4 of the statute, the circuit court appointed two psychiatrists to examine defendant. The psychiatrists' written report, filed October 4, 1940, stated in substance that defendant was a white man, single, about 35 years old; that he readily and without restraint narrated his life history, giving detailed accounts of many abnormal sexual activities. Such report further stated, in part:

‘Although there are many suggestive signs and symptoms of schizophrenia of long duration, a diagnosis of actual psychosis (insanity) is not being made at the present time, but further observation may establish the presence of that mental disorder.

‘Diagnosis:

‘1. Psychosexual deviation, homosexual (sexual psychopath).

‘2. Intellectual level within average limits but impaired by emotional regression.

‘3. Suggestive symptoms of simple schizophrenia.

‘Recommendation:

‘The prognosis of the near future appears to be unfavorable. He must be considered a distinct sexual menace and a source of serious concern in a free community not only because of his homosexual practices but also his psychosexual deviation is very likely to assume a much more ominous manifestation, that of pedophila (the use of children as sexual objects). Although denying any advances toward children, that possibility must be gravely considered. There is little likelihood that his desire for sexual gratification by abnormal methods can be overcome soon and further activity of a similar nature may be expected if he is allowed freedom of access in a free community. Segregation in an appropriate institution for the treatment of disorders appears to be definitely indicated.’

On October 22, 1940, the circuit court conducted a hearing to ascertain whether or not defendant was a ‘criminal sexual psychopathic person.’ Defendant did not demand a jury hearing as provided for in the statute. He was represented by an attorney at the hearing, at which testimony was taken. The record does not indicate objections by defendant to the taking of testimony nor does it contain the testimony. At the conclusion of such hearing the court made the following order, which is not shown in the record but appears in defendant's brief:

‘Whereas, defendant in the above entitled cause is now charged with having, on August 26, 1940, at the city of Howell and county of Livingston, committed in private, to-wit, at the home of the said Bert Chapman, located in the said city of Howell, an act of gross indecency with another male person, to-wit, John Bates, and is now confined in the Livingston county jail;

‘And Whereas, the court on a petition filed by the prosecuting attorney of Livingston county appointed Dr. David P. Philips and Dr. I. N. LaVictoire, two qualified psychiatrists, to examine the said defendant to determine if the said defendant is a criminal sexual psychopathic person;

‘And Whereas, the report filed in the case by the two psychiatrists appointed alleges that the said defendant is a criminal sexual psychopathic person; that he has been such a person for a period of more than one year and is a menace to society and should be hospitalized;

‘And Whereas, on a hearing this day held in the defendant's presence and his counsel's presence for the purpose of determining if the said defendant is a criminal sexual psychopathic person, testimony was given by witnesses that the said Bert Chapman had committed other acts of gross indecency over a period of years, in addition to his admissions of the same;

‘Now, Therefore, the court being duly advised in the premises, it is hereby determined that the said defendant, Bert Chapman,is a criminal sexual psychopathic person within the meaning of Act 165 of the Public Acts of 1939;

‘And further the court does commit the said defendant, Bert Chapman, to the State hospital commission to be confined in an appropriate institution under the jurisdiction of either the State hospital commission or the department of corrections until such person shall have fully and permanently recovered from such psychopathy.’

Defendant filed motion to set aside the above-quoted order of October 22, 1940. Such motion was brought on for hearing June 23, 1941, and was denied by order of the circuit court on July 9, 1941. Defendan...