State ex rel. Hartmann v. Lund, 40673

• Decision Date: 11 August 1967
• Docket Number: No. 40673,40673
• Citation: 152 N.W.2d 514,277 Minn. 398
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota ex rel. John J. HARTMANN, Respondent, v. Dr. J. Benjamin LUND, Medical Director, Minnesota Security Hospital, St. Peter, Minn., Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 514

152 N.W.2d 514

277 Minn. 398

STATE of Minnesota ex rel. John J. HARTMANN, Respondent, v. Dr. J. Benjamin LUND, Medical Director, Minnesota Security

Hospital, St. Peter, Minn., Appellant.

No. 40673.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 11, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under Minn.St. 525.763, when the probate judge is unable to act upon a petition for the commitment of a patient, the court commissioner may act in place of the judge.

2. Controverted questions of fact in a habeas corpus proceeding must be proved the same as in other legal proceedings. Thus, where the return and the original commitment proceedings set forth process showing good cause for relator's detention and show compliance by the probate court with statutory requirements, it is incumbent upon relator to prove the facts which he asserts invalidate the apparent effect of such process.

3. Where relator seeks discharge from a judgment of commitment through a habeas corpus proceeding, the proceeding involves a collateral attack on the judgment of commitment. Where, as here, the judgment of commitment is one imposed by a court of record having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of relator, the writ reaches only those defects which appear on the face of the proceedings. No defects appear on the face of the proceedings in the instant case, and extrinsic evidence is not admissible to establish want of jurisdiction.

4. Relator's unsupported statements in the present proceedings are not sufficient to overcome the presumption of the regularity of the original proceedings in the Hennepin County probate court. It is obvious from an examination of the original commitment proceedings that relator has not been denied due process of law and was on the face of the record validly committed.

5. The legality of the commitment proceeding herein should be challenged by application to the probate court of Hennepin County to appoint a guardian ad litem for the petitioner to file a petition for restoration to capacity upon such ground as might appear justified at the time. At such a hearing the petitioner should be afforded full opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine any witnesses whose testimony is taken to support the commitment and to test the facts surrounding the original commitment in the same proceedings.

Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., Gerard W. Snell, Acting Sol. Gen., St. Paul, for appellant.

George Stephenson, Minneapolis, Bailey Blethen, Mankato, for respondent.

Thomas A. Keller, III, Minneapolis, amicus curiae.

OPINION

NELSON, Justice.

Respondent, the director of the Minnesota Security Hospital, appeals from an order of the District Court of Nicollet County entered November 21, 1966, in a habeas corpus proceeding instituted in behalf of relator, John J. Hartmann, a patient in the hospital. The order appealed from directed that respondent release relator from the hospital 30 days after its issuance unless during that time respondent was 'otherwise authorized by new warrant obtained through further procedures under the Statutes in such case made and provided.'

In his pro se petition for the writ, relator contends that he is held by respondent under an invalid commitment from the Hennepin County probate court and that he was denied due process in the commitment proceedings, alleging that he was held incommunicado in the Minneapolis city jail from October 23 until November 1, 1951; that on that date he was served at 11 a.m. with notice of a sanity hearing which was to be, and was, held at 2 p.m. that day; that relator was not permitted to contact an attorney within this 3-hour period; that he was denied the right to be present at the sanity hearing; and that the court-appointed doctors, Donald R. Reader and Emil Johnson, did not rule relator to be mentally ill or incapacitated. He contends that the court did not have jurisdiction and that he was denied several constitutional rights.

Respondent in his return alleged that on October 31, 1951, Mary E. Hartmann, wife of relator, filed with the probate court of Hennepin County a petition for commitment in the matter of his mental illness and that an authorization to hold for examination was directed to the Minneapolis city jail, ordering confinement of relator pending outcome of the petition so filed; that on the same day the probate court issued a notice for examination and hearing, which notice was then personally served on relator; that a hearing was held on November 1, 1951, on which date the board of examiners reported to the probate court that relator was of unsound mind; and that the probate court then found relator to be mentally ill and issued a warrant committing him to the custody of the superintendent of the Minnesota Security Hospital.

The district court at the close of the habeas hearing found that in the forenoon of November 1, 1951, relator was examined by a board of examining physicians; that Frank J. Collins, counsel retained for relator by his wife, was present, as was a member of the Hennepin County Attorney's office; that following the examination and during the afternoon of the same day hearing proceedings were held before the Honorable Frank Bessessen, Hennepin County court commissioner, at which the medical board's conclusions were considered and testimony in support of the petition was heard; that relator was not present and was denied opportunity to be present at those proceedings; and that the procedures followed denied relator due process and the resulting judgment, finding relator mentally ill and dangerous, is therefore insufficient warrant on which to continue his confinement. The court also stated in a memorandum accompanying its order:

'I am impressed that in this procedure, whatever else may be said about it, relator is left with the feeling that he had no counsel representing his interests, was not adequately aware of the adversary nature and true purpose of the examination he does recall, and did not have opportunity to participate in or even to observe the proceedings which led to his commitment. Failing medical or other evidence showing that a right of confrontation would be useless or harmful to the patient, it seems to me its denial in this case denies due process. The record is ambiguous as to whether, speaking for the State's evidence, the Court Commissioner was present during the examination. Relator states he was not. An affidavit of one of the counsel involved on behalf of relator states otherwise. But whether he was or was not, the examination was not a fact finding procedure but preliminary to one. Its purpose is to enable the examining Board to obtain an adequate foundation upon which to express an expert conclusion to the Court. There is no reason why the proceedings could not have been continuous and consolidated, but they were not. Therefore, at the time when the examining board's conclusions were expressed, and meaningful inquiry could have been made into the basis upon which the conclusions reached and expressed were formed, this relator was denied an opportunity to confront those who testified against him. That, in the opinion of this Court, is not due process.

'I have permitted the State a period of 30 days in which to take such further procedures as it is advised. I want the record to be clear that I express no opinion as to whether or not this relator should not be confined. Associated with this proceeding, other matters have been touched upon which indicate to the Court there is serious question as to whether he should not, indeed, be confined. The reach of my decision here goes only to the procedure by which he was originally confined in Hennepin County.'

Photostatic copies from the Hennepin County probate files contradict several of relator's assertions concerning the commitment proceedings. They indicate that the judge of probate entered an order appointing medical examiners and an attorney for relator on November 1, 1951. The petition of Mary E. Hartmann, relator's wife, was filed on October 31, 1951, with the clerk of probate court. The notice of examination and hearing provides:

'You hereby are notified that pursuant to petition filed in this Court for hospitalization and possible commitment to a state hospital and U.S. Veterans Administration as a mentally ill person, examination and hearing will be held on November 1, 1951.

'Please inform the officer serving this Notice whether or not you desire to be represented by counsel at this hearing and whether or not you are financially able to obtain counsel.'

This notice was dated October 31, 1951, and served by the sheriff of Hennepin County on that day.

The report of examination states that an examination was held in the city jail at 10 a.m. November 1, 1951, and that the following were present: Relator; Commissioner Bessessen; Assistant County Attorney Bruce C. Stone; relator's attorney, Frank J. Collins; Drs. Donald R. Reader and Emil Johnson, who were the examiners; relator's wife and his father; and two members of the Minneapolis Police Department. The report sets forth the finding of symptoms as follows:

'This patient is a 27 year old separated white male who was initially subject to symptoms of schizophrenia while in military service during 1944. At that time he expressed a wide variety of ideas of reference and persecution which resulted in a medical discharge and transferred to St. Cloud Veterans Hospital. He was released after several months apparently improved. He was employed at irregular intervals since he would frequently resort to alcoholism or excessive use of barbiturates. He was committed again in 1949 because of explosive episodes of violent behavior at home during which he would threaten the life of his wife and children. He also threatened suicide on several occasions. On one occasion he attempted to secure a gun from a bank where he had previously been employed as a guard. On this occasion he...