Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 21171

Attorney(S)

Hall Thompson and Theo. D.B. Frear, for petitioner.

Judges

HEFNER, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Ex parte Smith, No. 21171 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Opinion filed May 26, 1931)

Factual and Procedural Background

Fred J. Smith, the applicant, was detained in the Eastern Hospital for the Insane at Vinita. He claimed he had been placed in the hospital without due process and that the commitment proceedings in the county court of Osage County were void. An application for a writ of habeas corpus was made to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. The application was referred by the Supreme Court to the district judge of the 23rd judicial district. That district court heard the evidence and certified its findings to the Supreme Court. Upon inspection of the order of reference, the Supreme Court concluded the matter had been referred to the district court as a referee and considered the referee's report.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the writ of habeas corpus, made returnable before the district court, was referred to that court for final determination on the merits or merely for taking testimony and making findings as a referee of the Supreme Court.
Whether a person confined in a hospital for the insane under commitment proceedings found to be void should be discharged when the evidence shows the person was insane at the time of commitment and remains insane.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ex parte Gonsher, 146 Okla. 156, 294 P. 159	Each justice of the Supreme Court may issue a writ of habeas corpus and make it returnable before a district court; when returnable before a district court the case is, unless otherwise ordered, before that court for determination on the merits and not as a referee of the Supreme Court.	The court cited this rule to frame the initial question of whether the reference to the district court was for final determination or only as a referee; after inspecting the order of reference the court concluded the reference was as a referee and therefore considered the referee's report.
Ex parte Dagley, 35 Okla. 180, 128 P. 699	Where it is admitted that a person was insane at the time of commitment and is still insane, that person is not entitled, as a matter of right, to be discharged solely because the statute under which she was held was void.	The court applied this principle to deny discharge of the applicant despite void commitment proceedings, because the referee found the applicant was insane at commitment and remains insane. The court ordered procedures to secure a regular, legal commitment if insanity is established in a proper hearing.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first identified the procedural question whether the district court was to adjudicate the matter on the merits or act only as a referee taking testimony and making findings. It cited Ex parte Gonsher for the general rule that a writ made returnable before a district court is, unless otherwise ordered, before that court for final determination.

Upon inspection of the order of reference in this case, the Supreme Court concluded the matter had been referred to the district court as a referee. Accordingly, the court treated and considered the certified findings of the referee.

The referee had found that the county court commitment proceedings were not in compliance with the statutes and thus were void, but also specifically found that the petitioner "was insane at the time he was received into the Hospital for the Insane at Vinita, and is still insane." The court cited Ex parte Dagley for the proposition that a person admitted to an asylum who was insane at the time of commitment and remains insane is not entitled to discharge merely because the statute under which they were held was void.

Applying Dagley, the Supreme Court held that despite the invalidity of the original commitment proceedings, discharge was not appropriate given the finding of present insanity. The court reasoned the petitioner is nevertheless entitled to the protections of law and to be regularly and legally committed if in fact insane. Therefore the court ordered further proceedings to secure a proper legal determination of sanity and, if appropriate, a lawful commitment.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court sustained the findings of the referee and ordered that a further hearing be had before the district court of the 23rd judicial district for further proceedings, not as referee but for final determination upon the merits. The court directed that if the district court finds the applicant is still insane, then upon proper application he should be delivered into the custody of the sheriff of Osage County so that the proper county authorities may determine, by the statutory procedures, whether he is sane or insane; if, upon proper hearing, he is found not insane, he should be discharged.

Implications: The direct effect on the parties is that the petitioner was not discharged despite void commitment proceedings; instead, he is to be the subject of a proper legal hearing in Osage County to determine sanity and, if insanity is established, to be legally committed. The opinion applies existing precedent to the facts and does not purport to establish a new legal principle beyond that application.

Show full summary ...

Ex parte SMITH

(Syllabus.)

1. Habeas Corpus — Status of Proceedings Where Writ Issued by Supreme Court Justice Made Returnable Before District Court.

Each of the justices of the Supreme Court has power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to any part of the state upon petition by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and make it returnable before himself or before the Supreme Court or before any district court or judge thereof in the state. When the writ is issued and made returnable before a district court in the state, unless otherwise ordered, the case is before that court for determination upon the merits and not as a referee of the Supreme Court.

2. Same — Insane Persons — Insane Person Confined in Asylum Under Void Commitment Proceedings not to Be Released but Returned to Proper County Authorities for Legal Proceedings.

Where a man is confined in the hospital for the insane and the commitment proceedings are void, but he was in fact insane at the time he was committed and has never recovered and is still insane, he will not be released, but he should be delivered into the custody of the sheriff of the county from which he was sent to the hospital, and the proper authorities of that county upon a proper hearing should determine whether or not he is sane or Insane in accordance with the provisions of the statutes for making such investigation and determination.

HEFNER, J.

Fred J. Smith, the applicant for a writ of habeas corpus, is detained in the Eastern Hospital for the Insane at Vinita. He claims that he was placed therein without due process of law and that all of the commitment proceedings of the county court of Osage county are void. On application to this court for the writ the application was referred to the district judge of the 23rd judicial district, and that court in compliance with the order of this court heard the evidence in the case and certified its findings to this court for final determination.

The first question for our determination is whether or not the matter was referred to the district court for a hearing on the merits and for a final determination by it, or whether or not the same was referred to that court to take the testimony and make findings of fact and conclusions of law as a referee of this court.

In the case of Ex parte Gonsher, 146 Okla. 156, 294 P. 159, this court said:

"Each of the justices of the Supreme Court has power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to any part of the state upon petition by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and make it returnable before himself or before the Supreme Court or before any district court or judge theeof in the state. When the writ is issued and made returnable before a district court in the state, unless otherwise ordered, the case is before that court for determination upon the merits and not as a referee of the Supreme Court."

When the writ was made returnable before the district court, it was therefore before that court for final judgment upon the merits unless it was otherwise ordered by this court.

By an inspection of an order of reference we have concluded that the matter was referred to the district court as a referee and that it is now our duty to consider the report of the referee.

The referee found that the proceedings had by the county court of Osage county committing the petitioner to the Eastern Hospital for the Insane were not in compliance with the statutes and that the proceedings were void. The record discloses that the finding in this respect was correct.

The 9th paragraph of the findings is as follows:

"I further find that the petitioner was insane at the time he was received into the Hospital for the Insane at Vinita, and is still insane."

In the matter of Ex parte Dagley, 35 Okla. 180, 128 P. 699, the second paragraph of the syllabus is as follows:

"For the purpose of the hearing, it being admitted that the person was not only at the time of commitment, but is also now insane, whose release from the asylum was sought solely on the ground that the statute under which she was held was void, such party is not entitled, as a matter of right, to be discharged upon that ground alone."

Although the commitment proceedings whereby the applicant was committed to the hospital were void, he should not be discharged, because of the finding that he was insane at the time he was committed and is still insane. Under the rule announced in the Dagley Case, it would not be proper, at this time, to discharge him.

We think, however, that he is entitled to be regularly and legally committed to the hospital if he is in fact insane. He is entitled to the benefits of all of the law enacted for his protection. Since the commitment proceedings are void, on a proper application by him, we think he should be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Osage county and that a proper hearing be had in that county in reference to the question as to his sanity. If upon a proper hearing it be found that he is not insane, he should be discharged. On the other hand, if it be found that he is insane, he should be remanded to the hospital. It is therefore ordered that a further hearing be had before the district court of the 23rd judicial district for further proceedings, not as referee, but for final determination upon the merits, and if that court finds that the applicant is still insane, upon proper application by him, he should be delivered into the custody of the sheriff of Osage county, and the proper authorities in that county should determine whether he is sane or insane.

RILEY, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and CULLISON, J., absent.

Note. — See under (2) 12 R. C. L. p. 1216.

EX PARTE SMITH