Court Opinion

ID: 9698773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:59:40.479139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:43.185668
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(concurring in affirmance). My colleagues Ryan and Levin have amply analyzed the facts and the law of this case, and I am in partial agreement with both of them. First, I agree with both that the trial court erred in finding the statute unconstitutional. Second, I very much agree with my Brother Levin that the trial judge had authority to hold hearings to determine what psychiatric treatment would be provided McLeod under the various statutory alternatives. Third, I agree with my Brother Ryan that the presentence inquiry cannot be conducted without making the Department of Corrections or of Mental Health a party to the inquiry. Common fairness requires that the departments inquired into have an opportunity to testify, and, without criticizing the testimony proffered in the instant case, neither the trial court nor a court on appeal has a fair and adequate record for judgment where the departments have had no opportunity to testify.
J. Blair Moody, Jr., J., concurred with Williams,