Title: Hattison v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Louis HATTISON v. STATE of Arkansas

95-563                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                  Opinion delivered May 6, 1996


1.   Statutes -- construction of -- no sanctions existed for
     violation. -- When the General Assembly uses the word "shall,"
     the effect is mandatory unless an absurdity would result; the
     thirty-day requirement of Ark.Code Ann.  5-2-314(d)(Supp.
     1995) is thus mandatory in the literal sense; however, the
     statute does not address any sanction to be employed, and
     appellant cited no case suggesting that it was the General
     Assembly's intent to deprive the probate court of jurisdiction
     should the report be untimely. 

2.   Jurisdiction -- court found appellant lacking in mental
     capacity to have committed the crimes -- jurisdiction of
     probate court established by "automatic" order of committment. 
     Where appellant had been committed by the court, after having
     been found lacking in mental capacity sufficient to have
     committed the crimes with which he was charged, Ark. Code Ann.
      5-2-314(e) placed on appellant the burden of proving to the
     probate court that "his release would not create a substantial
     risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to
     property of another due to a present mental disease or
     defect"; jurisdiction of the probate court was established by
     the "automatic" order of commitment entered by the circuit
     court.

3.   Statutes -- court not deprived of jurisdiction due to late
     psychiatric report -- dismissal and loss of jurisdiction not
     appropriate remedy. -- While a commitment cannot be
     "indefinite," there was no reason to deprive the probate court
     of jurisdiction due to a late psychiatric report; the supreme
     court found no announced penalty in the statute or in the case
     law interpreting the statute for the State's failure to meet
     the statutory time limits, and the appellant gave no support
     for his contention that the remedy was dismissal and loss of
     jurisdiction; no such sanction as is provided in the speedy
     trial law was provided by the statutes governing acquittals on
     the ground of insanity.


     Appeal from Pulaski Probate Court; Mary Spencer McGowan,
Probate Judge; affirmed.
     William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by:  Stephen Wade
Parker, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Patricia Van Ausdall, Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.

May 6, 1996   *ADVREP1*


LOUIS HATTISON                          95-563
                                        Opinion Delivered:

          Appellant                     

     v.                                 Appeal from Pulaski
                                        County Probate Court


STATE OF ARKANSAS                       Honorable Mary Spencer
                                        McGowan, Probate Judge

          Appellee                      Affirmed


                     David Newbern, Justice.
     On March 3 and March 7, 1995, judgments of acquittal of
criminal charges were entered in favor of Louis Hattison, the
appellant.  In each judgment the Circuit Court recited a finding
that Mr. Hattison lacked the mental capacity to commit the crime
charged.  There was a provision in each for automatic commitment of
Mr. Hattison to the custody of the Director of the Department of
Human Services for examination by a psychologist or psychiatrist in
accordance with Ark. Code Ann.  5-2-314(b) (Supp. 1995). 
Subsection (d) of the statute states the Director "shall file the
psychiatric or psychological report with a probate court ... within
thirty (30) days following entry of order of acquittal."  The
report was not filed until April 7, 1995.  Mr. Hattison argues
that, due to the late filing of the report, the Probate Court
lacked jurisdiction to order continuation of his commitment.  We
affirm the Probate Court's order denying Mr. Hattison's petition
for release.
     We agree with Mr. Hattison's first point of appeal which is
essentially that the report was late and the Probate Court erred in
stating it was timely.  We cannot, however, agree with his second
point which is that the Probate Court lost jurisdiction as a result
of the report being late and thus erred in approving his continued
commitment for treatment.
     When the General Assembly uses the word "shall," we hold the
effect is mandatory unless an absurdity would result.  Campbell v.
State, 311 Ark. 641,