State v. District Court of Hennepin County
| Decision Date | 26 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 28746.,No. 28754.,28746.,28754. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. SUNDBERG v. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. W. Bardwell, Judge.
Petition by the State, on the relation of George A. Sundberg, to the District Court in and for Hennepin County and the Honorable W. W. Bardwell, one of the judges of said court, for an order discharging relator from the state hospital for the insane. From an order denying his petition, relator appeals and brings certiorari.
Writ of certiorari discharged, and the order reversed, with directions.
Somsen, Dempsey & Flor, of New Ulm, and Cobb, Hoke, Benson, Krause & Faegre and L. M. Staples, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Henry N. Benson, Atty. Gen., and Ed. J. Goff, Co. Atty., and Per M. Larson, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Minneapolis, for respondents.
In May, 1923, in the district court of Hennepin county, the relator, George A. Sundberg, was tried under an indictment charging him with murder in the first degree. He was acquitted "on the ground that at the date of the crime alleged" he was insane, and thereupon committed to the asylum for the criminal insane at Saint Peter, "to be there held in custody by said institution until hence discharged by competent authority." In May, 1931, under the statute and on the certificate hereafter dealt with, relator petitioned the district court of Hennepin county for an order discharging him from the hospital at Saint Peter where he has been confined since his commitment. From the order denying that petition, relator appeals. His counsel being in doubt as to the correct procedure, a writ of certiorari has also been procured.
1. The order denying relator's petition was one "affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding," and so appealable under Mason's Minn. St. 1927, § 9498 (subd. 7). Hence the writ of certiorari should be and is discharged; the case being properly here on appeal. 2. Before the amendatory act of 1931, hereinafter considered, a person acquitted of crime on the ground of insanity, and so committed to a "state hospital or asylum for safe keeping and treatment," could not be released under the statute "except upon the order of the court committing him" and the written certificate of the superintendent of the hospital where he was confined "that, in his opinion, such person is wholly recovered and that no person will be endangered by his discharge." G. S. 1923, § 10723 (R. L. 1905, § 5376, as amended by Laws 1907, c. 358, § 1). By Laws 1931, c. 364, the provisions for a patient's release or discharge were dropped from the statute and others substituted. The first paragraph of the new material is as follows: "The person so acquitted shall be liberated from such hospital or asylum upon the order of the court committing him thereto, whenever there is presented to said court the certificate in writing of the Superintendent of the hospital or asylum where such person is confined, certifying that in the opinion of such Superintendent such person is wholly recovered and that no person will be endangered by his discharge."
Then follows a paragraph to the effect that, if the superintendent fails or refuses to furnish the requested certificate at the request of the patient, the latter may petition the court for his release, notwithstanding and providing that a hearing shall be had on such petition. If the evidence introduced convinces the court that the petitioner has "wholly recovered and that no person will be endangered by his discharge," an order of discharge must follow. The concluding paragraph of the new matter added by the act of 1931 covers cases where the court is not convinced that the petitioner has fully recovered, but it is shown "that no person will be endangered by his release on parole." In that situation, if a "suitable person is willing to take such committed person on parole, and to furnish a home for him and care for and support him, and furnishes a satisfactory bond," the court may order the release of such confined person on parole "for such time and upon, such terms and conditions as the court may determine and order."
That is the statutory law of the case. The certificate procured by relator from Dr. George H. Freeman, superintendent of the Saint Peter state hospital, under date of May 20, 1931, is in the form required by the statute. It reads as follows: "I herewith certify that in my opinion George A. Sundberg is wholly recovered and that no person will be endangered by his discharge." That certificate was confirmed by Dr. Freeman's testimony when he was called as a witness at the hearing below. He reaffirmed his opinion that relator had fully recovered, and that no one "would be endangered by his discharge," and went on to say, "I think when I made that certificate I felt the deep responsibility that I was taking, but I have myself taken this attitude, if there is any case going to be brought into court that I can't conscientiously oppose, I am going to give the required certificate, but if I feel I can conscientiously oppose it in any way whatever on the ground of the man's mental condition, I am going to oppose it just as strongly as I can."
Notwithstanding his strict compliance with statute and the force of Dr. Freeman's certificate, relator's petition was denied; the ruling being thus explained in the memorandum of the learned trial judge accompanying the order.
Relator's status is distinctly not that of a criminal. On the contrary, he is simply a citizen who, having been formally accused of a crime, was as formally acquitted. But he was found to be suffering from mental disease to such an extent that, in his own interest and for the safety of the public, he was committed to a state institution, not as punishment, but rather and only for observation and treatment. He is but a ward of...
To continue reading
Request your trial