Court Opinion

ID: 9588878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:39:24.794504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:00.505980
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
I concur in Division 1 of the majority opinion, which holds that the Fourth Amendment does not require an adversarial commitment hearing. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, supra.
I agree with the dissent by Justice Gunter to the extent that state law requires an adversarial commitment hearing. Code Ann. §§ 27-210, 27-212, 27-401 et seq.
I am unable to agree with Division 2 of the majority opinion which holds that the denial by the state of the defendant’s statutory right to a commitment hearing is, as a matter of law, not a required step in a felony prosecution, not reversible error, and not subject to judicial review. Nor am I able to agree with the dissent by Justice Gunter that denial of a commitment hearing renders the defendant’s conviction unconstitutional and void as a matter of law, thus requiring the quashing of the *58indictment, the holding of a commitment hearing, reindictment and retrial.
The better view in my opinion would be to determine whether the defendant was harmed by denial of his statutory right to commitment hearing. If he was in no way harmed, there is no need to repeat the process. However, if he was harmed (aside from being held in jail pending trial and conviction) by denial of commitment hearing, then the process should be repeated.
Because we deal here with a state statutory right (not a constitutional right), the burden of showing harm should be on the defendant. I would remand this case for a determination of the question of whether the defendant was harmed by being denied a commitment hearing.
I am authorized to state that Justice Ingram joins in this dissent.