Court Opinion

ID: 9599552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:19:35.728081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:45.712154
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Chief Justice:
Plaintiff, a representative of the Utah State Hospital, initiated this action against the guardian of Steve Diamen'ti to recover the costs of his care and treatment in the sum of $13,315. Plaintiff further sought an order compelling the guardian to make payments of $589.20 per month for all future care. The trial court ruled that no payments were required by reason of Section 64 — 7-54, U.C.A.1953, which specifically excluded the provisions of Chapter 7, Title 64, in regard to the methods for the commitment and care of the criminally insane, Chapter 48 of Title 77. The trial court reasoned that the Code of Criminal Procedure, Title 77, Chapter 48, did not provide for the payment of the care of a person declared insane and committed thereunder to the Utah State Hospital, and that Section 64 — 7-6, U.C.A.1953, was not applicable to the estate of a person criminally committed to the hospital; and therefore, there was no statutory ground to compel payment. Plaintiff appeals.
*900Steve Diamenti was charged with assault with intent to commit murder. Prior to trial he was declared insane and committed to the state hospital to remain there in custody until he should become sane, whereupon he was to be returned to the original custody, and all proceedings which had been suspended should be resumed, Section 77-48-5, U.C.A.1953, as amended 1955.
Plaintiff’s claim for recovery is under Chapter 7, Title 64, which deals with the Utah State Hospital, the primary facility for the treatment of those having psychiatric or other disease which substantially impairs their mental health.1 Plaintiff relies specifically on Section 64-7-6, U.C.A.1953, which provides that the actual expense for the care of a patient in the Utah State Hospital shall be paid by the guardian of a patient, who has funds that may be used for such purpose.
Plaintiff concedes that the care and maintenance of a person convicted of a crime is assumed by the State. He urges that since Mr. Diamenti was adjudged insane and the proceedings were suspended, there has been no criminal commitment pursuant to which the State must bear the costs of care. Mr. Diamenti is merely an ill person, and his guardian should pay the costs of his medical care and treatment.
Section 64-7-54, U.C.A.1953, provides:
Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to alter or change the method presently employed for the commitment and care of the criminally insane as provided in Chapter 48 of Title 77,” Utah Code Annotated 1953.
This statute, in effect, provides that the regular manner2 of caring for those who have been declared insane under the Criminal Code of Procedure shall not be changed by the chapter dealing with the Utah State Hospital. With the exception of Section 8, concerning preliminary examination, Chapter 48 of Title 77, do.es not provide that a person who has been criminally committed to the state hospital must pay for his care. Mr. Diamenti was not involuntarily hospitalized under the standards set forth in Section 64-7-36, U.C.A.1953, as amended 1971; he was declared “insane” 3 and under the mandate of Section 77-48-5, U.C. A. 1953, he was committed to the hospital and the criminal proceedings were suspended. Although insane, he will be detained in custody under the law to answer for his crime upon becoming sane, his detention in the hospital. is a consequence of his committing a crime; otherwise, although his mental condition were the same, he might not be so confined in the present facility. His commitment to the state hospital is part and parcel of the administration of the criminal law. His bail was exonerated upon commitment to the hospital (Section 77-48-7, U.C.A.1953), and upon being certified sane, he will be brought to trial (Section 77-48-5, U.C.A.1953). His detention is pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code, and Section 64-7-6 is inapplicable.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
HENRIOD, and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

. Sec. 6T-7-28(a), U.C.A.1953, as amended 1971.

. gee definition of “method” in Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2d Ed.

. See State v. Poulson, 14 Utah 2d 213, 215, 381 P.2d 93 (1963) for a definition of this term.