Court Opinion

ID: 9548784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:08:41.780897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:25.259921
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Associate Chief Justice
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result. Although both parties to this appeal seem to agree that under the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III), published by the American Psychiatric Association, mental retardation is included as a form of mental illness, it does not appear to me that the legislature has adopted that definition. The legislature in Utah Code Ann. § 64-7-28(1) (1986) defines mental illness as
a psychiatric disorder as defined by the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which substantially impairs a person’s mental, emotional, behavioral, or related functioning.
On the other hand, mental retardation is defined in section 64-8-13(5) as
a significant subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association.
Although both definitions refer to the DSM-III, apparently our legislature intended that “mental illness” not subsume “mental retardation.” The majority opinion properly recognizes this difference.
I do not fully subscribe to the majority’s assignment of much of Murphy’s problems to his thirty-year institutionalization. Con-cededly, such confinement has taken its toll on him, but his problems are much more .deep-seated. I do not agree that the trial court continued Murphy’s confinement solely because of inadequate community resources to assist him. Nor do I agree that the doctors who examined Murphy “expressed a reluctance to release him from the state hospital due to the effects of his institutionalization for some thirty years.” In February of 1985, the examining doctors sent a letter to Judge Dee which outlined some of Murphy’s problems. Excerpts from that letter are as follows:
Dear Judge Dee:
The following is a yearly treatment progress report on Bernt Murphy.
... He continues to display emotional and behavioral lability and impulsivity, unrealistic expectations of his skills and abilities, poor social skills, and inappropriate sexual impulses and controls....
During the past year, the treating staff has given him the opportunity to participate in industrial assignments. His supervisors report that he has been a very good and reliable worker. In addition, since December he has been allowed to go on “home visits” to his aunt’s house in West Jordan and has functioned without incident. However, his participation in the industrial assignment and his last home visit were both curtailed as the result of recent apparently unprovoked violent threats to another patient and staff members.
*291If the court continues his present commitment, the treatment staff plans to continue counseling, encourage participation in industrial assignments, structured participation in a sheltered workshop, more frequent home visits, and counseling to ensure that the home visits are both appropriate and productive.
We are not recommending Bernt’s release since we feel that releasing him from the State Hospital would be doing a disservice to Bemt and the community. We feel that he lacks the social skills and controls necessary to function anywhere but in a highly structured in-patient setting and lacks the ability to provide for the basic necessities of life or his own welfare. We feel that however well intentioned, his release from the State Hospital would rapidly become a social and individual disaster.
[[Image here]]
Sincerely,
[Doctors’ signatures]
(Emphasis added.)
In addition, Dr. Austin testified that he did not “believe that [defendant] can function in society. He barely is able to function within the highly structured programs of the State Hospital.” Dr. Austin opined that because of Murphy’s poor judgment, his lack of social skills, and his lack of occupational skills, he may be a danger to himself. He also testified that because of Murphy’s sexual maturity and poor judgment, he may be a danger to others. Dr. Groesbeck testified that he was likewise concerned that defendant’s “ability to handle his impulses, especially of getting angry, [is] still compromised” and thought that “he still lacks social skills in handling himself well.” Dr. Austin also testified that Murphy’s behavior had recently deteriorated since he had been taken off anti-psychotic drugs. Termination of his drug therapy program became necessary when he developed systems of tardive dyskinesia, a condition caused by prolonged use of antipsychotic drugs. Tardive dyskinesia is a degenerative disease that causes damage to the brain and involuntary facial movements.
In view of these assessments of Murphy’s condition and his conduct which caused him to be originally committed to the hospital, it is apparent to me that while he can no longer be legally confined in the state hospital, he must continue to live in a highly structured environment with close monitoring lest the disaster occur which the doctors predict.