Court Opinion

ID: 9717380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:02:39.040809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.900329
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring in the results.
The Legislature has, in my opinion, prescribed an unduly complicated procedure for the judiciary’s role in the involuntary treatment of mental illness. Nevertheless, it has provided:
“The hearing shall be conducted in as informal a manner as practical .... ” Section 25-03.1-19, NDCC.
Somewhat analogous are the proceedings involving the chemical tests for intoxication; certain reports and statements become a part of the court record as directed by specific statutes. Compare § 25-03.1-11, NDCC relating to a mental examination report and § 39-20-07(8) and (10), NDCC relating to blood alcohol tests.
Thomas has not challenged the admission of the report on constitutional or any other grounds. Due process, of course, requires fair hearings. The cases of In Re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, Cass County, 183 N.W.2d 520 (N.D.1971) and Williams Electric Coop. v. Montana-Dakota Util. Co., 79 N.W.2d 508 (N.D.1956) have explained that hearings are unfair when the defect complained of is such as might lead to a denial of justice.
The telephonic testimony in this case did not lead to a denial of justice but contradicted the report on file and firmly established that clear and convincing evidence was not available to support the burden on the petitioner. Thomas should win his case on the merits and not on a technicality.