State v. Probate Court of Ramsey County

• Decision Date: 30 June 1939
• Docket Number: No. 32163.,32163.
• Citation: 287 N.W. 297,205 Minn. 545
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PEARSON v. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY et al.

287 N.W. 297

205 Minn. 545

STATE ex rel. PEARSON v. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY et al.

No. 32163.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 30, 1939.

Reargument Denied August 31, 1939.

Prohibition proceeding by the State of Minnesota, on the relation of Charles Edwin Pearson, relator, against the Probate Court of Ramsey County, and the Honorable A. S. Pearson, Judge, to prohibit the respondents from proceeding with a hearing under the act relating to persons having a psychopathic personality, wherein a temporary writ was issued.

Restraining order vacated, and writ quashed.

Otis H. Godfrey, of St. Paul (Joseph F. Cowern, of St. Paul, of counsel), for relator.

J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., and John A. Weeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

GALLAGHER, Chief Justice.

On April 27, 1939, James A. Cook, a police officer of the city of St. Paul, filed in the probate court of Ramsey county a petition verified on information and belief, charging one Charles Edwin Pearson with being a psychopathic personality as defined by c. 369, Session Laws of Minnesota, 1939, and praying for his commitment according to law. On certification by the county attorney of his satisfaction that good cause existed for the institution of the proceedings, the probate court issued an order requiring the sheriff of Ramsey county forthwith to bring the said Pearson before the court and another order fixing a hearing on the petition for May 5, 1939, at two o'clock P. M.

Before the service of these orders, relator applied to this court for a writ of prohibition and on his verified petition attacking the constitutionality of the act under which the proceedings were instituted we issued a temporary writ prohibiting the probate court from proceeding with the hearing until the further order of this court. The matter is now here on relator's application to make the writ permanent.

Because of a recognized need for legislation to deal with sex offenders and a belief, shared in by medical authorities and others, that sex crimes are committed because of a weakness of the will as well as of the intellect, the 1939 legislature enacted c. 369 entitled: "A Bill For An Act relating to persons having a psychopathic personality." Section 1 of the act reads: "The term `psychopathic personality' as used in this act means the existence in any person of such conditions of emotional instability, or impulsiveness of behavior, or lack of customary standards of good judgment, or failure to appreciate the consequences of his acts, or a combination of any such conditions, as to render such person irresponsible for his conduct with respect to sexual matters and thereby dangerous to other persons."

Section 2, in part, reads: "Except as otherwise herein or hereafter provided, all laws now in force or hereafter enacted relating to insane persons, to persons alleged to be insane, and to persons found to be insane, shall apply with like force and effect to persons having a psychopathic personality, to persons alleged to have such personality, and to persons found to have such personality, respectively."

The act also provides that the facts be submitted to the county attorney and his approval be procured before a petition be filed with the probate court; that the probate judge may at his discretion exclude the public from the hearing; that the patient may be represented by counsel and if the court determines that the patient is financially unable to obtain counsel, it is empowered but is not required to appoint counsel for him; and that the patient shall be entitled to have subpoenas issued to compel the attendance of witnesses. From a finding that a "patient" is a "psychopathic personality" he may appeal to the district court upon compliance with the provisions of 3 Mason Minn.St.1938 Supp. § 8992-166, 8992-167, 8992-169, and 8992-170.

Section 3 of the act reads: "The existence in any person of a condition of psychopathic personality shall not in any case constitute a defense to a charge of crime, nor relieve such person from liability to be tried upon a criminal charge, unless such person is in a condition of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, or lunacy within the meaning of the laws relating to crimes and criminal procedure."

Relator challenges the constitutionality of c. 369, L.1939, on three grounds. He contends: (1) That it violates Article 6, § 7 of the constitution of Minnesota defining and limiting the jurisdiction of probate courts; (2) that it violates Article 4, § 27, of the constitution of Minnesota, which reads: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title."; and (3) that it is void because it is uncertain and indefinite and violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., and other constitutional provisions.

1. We deal first with the question of the power of the legislature under our constitution to confer upon the probate court jurisdiction over persons having what is termed a "psychopathic personality."

Article 6, § 1 of the Minnesota constitution, reads "The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, courts of probate, justices of the peace, and such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as the legislature may from time to time establish by a two-thirds vote."

Section 7 of the same Article, in part, reads: "A probate court shall have jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons and persons under guardianship, but no other jurisdiction, except as prescribed by this Constitution."

It will be noted that the constitution specifically limits the jurisdiction of the probate court to "estates of deceased persons and persons under guardianship." If persons having "psychopathic personalities" are to be included among those over whom the probate court has jurisdiction, it must be because they are persons subject to guardianship. The constitution does not specifically state what class of persons are subject to guardianship but leaves the regulation of that question to the legislature. It was so decided in State ex rel. Chesley v. Wilcox, 24 Minn. 143, where the court said: "The manner in which jurisdiction conferred by the constitution on any court or officer shall be exercised when not prescribed by the constitution itself, or the power to regulate it vested elsewhere, may be regulated by the legislature." It was there held that the putting under guardianship of all persons who are proper subjects for it—insane persons, incorrigible drunkards, idiots, spendthrifts, as well as minors—comes within the jurisdiction of the probate court.

While this court in State ex rel. Chesley v. Wilcox, supra, referred only to insane persons, incorrigible drunkards, idiots, spendthrifts and minors as included in the class subject to guardianship within the jurisdiction of the probate court, we do not think it was intended for all time to limit the classification to those named or to deprive the probate court of jurisdiction over other types of "unnaturals" such as the class involved herein.

Leavitt v. City of Morris, 105 Minn. 170, 117 N.W. 393, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 984, 15 Ann.Cas. 961, held constitutional c. 288, L.1907, creating and establishing a hospital farm for inebriates, and authorizing the state board of control to purchase lands therefor and to provide means for the building and maintenance of such institution. This case recognized the jurisdiction of the probate court over persons defined by the act as "inebriates" and approved the procedure prescribed for hearing and commitment.

The constitutionality of c. 397, L.1917, known as "The Juvenile Court Act," was determined in Peterson v. McAuliffe, 151 Minn. 467, 187 N.W. 226. That act placed jurisdiction over juvenile offenders in the district court in counties having more than 33,000 inhabitants and in the probate court in counties having not more than 33,000 inhabitants.

Chapter 369, L.1939, § 1, defines the term "psychopathic personality" to mean "the existence in any person of such conditions of emotional instability, or impulsiveness of behavior, or lack of customary standards of good judgment, or failure to appreciate the consequences of his acts, or a combination of any such conditions, as to render such person irresponsible for his conduct with respect to sexual matters and thereby dangerous to other persons." The American Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Fifteenth Edition, by Dorland, defines "psychopathic" as "pertaining to mental disease." It naturally follows that a "psychopathic personality" is one characterized by a mental disorder. It is well recognized that there are many types and degrees of mental disorders. An article appearing in volume 2, March-April, 1939, Number 3 Edition of The American Journal of Medical Jurisprudence on "Mental Abnormality in Relation to Crime" (Draper), p. 161, 163, refers to "psychopathic personalities" thus: "These are individuals who show a lifelong and constitutional tendency not to conform to the customs of the group. They habitually misbehave. They have no sense of responsibility to their fellow-men or to society as a whole. Due to their inherent inability to follow any one occupation, they succumb readily to the temptation of getting easy money through a life of crime. There is usually a history of delinquency in early life. These individuals fail to learn by experience. They are inadequate, incompatible, and inefficient.

This class is sometimes designated as `Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority.' Before making this diagnosis, every other diagnostic possibility must be considered and excluded. In this group we see pathological lying, prostitution, vagrancy, illegitimacy, alcoholism and drug addiction. The term `moral deficiency' is sometimes used to characterize this group. These patients may have psychotic episodes superimposed upon the trends just mentioned. Many of these individuals come into contact with the courts on account of...