Court Opinion

ID: 9706078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:31:04.602041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:50.210939
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 49. (concurring). I do not join Part V of the opinion. I agree that the county must develop the plan. Majority op. at 332, 334 — 35. That's settled.
¶ 50. There is no dispute in this case about who will pay for the programs and facilities. No adverse parties are debating this issue. This court should not be rendering an advisory opinion.
¶ 51. The following exchange between Justice Crooks and defense counsel at oral argument clearly *338demonstrates that the issue of who will pay for the programs and facilities is not before this court.
JUSTICE CROOKS: Mr. Kelly [defense counsel], why shouldn't we reach the issue of who has the financial responsibility?
MR. KELLY [defense counsel]: Whether it's the state or the county? Basically because Mr. Sprosty doesn't care; he wants to be released to a community setting. I'm an advocate for Mr. Sprosty. I don't represent the county. We don't have a situation in which a county has been ordered to pay anything. In fact, nobody has been ordered to do anything.
JUSTICE CROOKS: But don't you think it would help your client's position if indeed this court said the responsibility is with the state rather than with the county? Don't you think that would speed things along a bit?
MR. KELLY: Maybe in the sense that the state has more money than counties do. I could take that position. But I don't think Mr. Sprosty's freedom should hinge on who pays, and I don't think that's the issue which is ripe for consideration by this court. Nobody raised the issue in the trial court as to whether the state was going to pay or whether the county was going to pay. That wasn't something that Judge Kirchman was asked to decide. Nobody raised that issue in the court of appeals and I don't read the court of appeals decision as making a decision on that issue. I think what the court of appeals told Judge Kirchman was that he has to require a county to prepare a release plan and if there isn't a facility that is currently available then it's up to the county to create some kind of a release plan that accomplishes the goal of the statute. The court of appeals didn't say who has to pay for it. So at this point there hasn't been any kind of adversarial rela*339tionship in this case that would squarely put that issue before the court.
JUSTICE CROOKS: But I was just going to say that in telling the county that the county is to prepare that plan, it seems to me that impliedly the court of appeals is saying "County, you better have a facility available." In other words, I think you can read the approach taken by the court of appeals as putting the burden on the county, and that's why it seems to me that you would want to take a position on behalf of your client. Otherwise the next battle is going to be which agency, the state or the county or governmental organization has the responsibility to meet the requirement.
MR. KELLY: I'm not sure that's going to be a battle because I hear the state saying in this case that we agree we ought to pay for it.
JUSTICE CROOKS: I think that's what Dr. Weinstein is saying. I don't know if he's really able to speak clearly for the state in that regard.
MR. KELLY: I would hope he does but unless we get to a position where a county says "We have been ordered to pay for this and we think the state should pay for it" and the state then says, "No, we don't have to pay for it; it's the county's responsibility" — until that happens there isn't any kind of an adversarial battle that will ripen into a dispute that this court should decide. At this point, that issue just hasn't come up in the case because nobody has asked — or nobody has ordered, rather — a county to spend any money on anything.
¶ 52. For the reasons set forth, I do not join Part V of the opinion.