Court Opinion

ID: 9669298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:48:38.682152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:53.378642
License: Public Domain

TIPTON, J.
(dissenting). — I am unable to agree with the majority opinion. The majority opinion holds that a notice served upon an alleged insane person two hours before a hearing complies with Section 9336 of the Laws of 1945, pages 908-909, which requires that “such notice shall be signed by the Clerk under the seal of the Court and served in person on the alleged insane person a reasonable time before the date set for such hearing.” (Emphasis mine.) [Section 449, R. S. Mo., 1939, is identical with Section 9336 except it says, “signed by the judge or clerk.”]
“A reasonable time” before such hearing would necessarily be a sufficient time for the alleged insane person to employ a lawyer, obtain evidence and have an examination by a competent physician to determine if he were insane. Any time short of that would make a farce out of the proceedings.
“The'law securing to one (* * *) the assistance of counsel did not intend a barren right, for what avail would be the privilege of counsel if on the moment, without opportunity of studying the case, he would be forced to trial. State v. Ferris, 16 La. Ann. 424.” State v. Jackson, 344 Mo. 1055, 130 S. W. 2d 595, 1. c. 596.
*41To construe these sections any other way would violate the due process clause of our Constitution. That section reads, “That no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. ’ ’ Section 10, Article I, 1945 Constitution.
It would be impossible for an alleged insane person to secure an attorney, find witnesses and be examined by a physician in two hours. If the alleged insane person does not employ an attorney, then under Section 9338, Laws of 1945, it is the duty of the court to appoint one for him, and certainly it would take more than two hours for this attorney to investigate the [658] facts so that he would properly represent the alleged insane person. His duty to the person he represents is the same as if he had been hired by the person on trial.
The majority opinion says, “The family at that time were in favor of the proceeding. The petitioner unquestionably was violently insane. ’ ’
The fact that the family was in favor of the proceeding is no answer to the question. Suppose a family is tired of supporting one of its aged members who is not insane. If he were served with notice only two hours before the hearing he would have no opportunity to secure evidence that would tend to prove that he was not insane and he would soon find himself in the State Hospital for the insane.
If “the petitioner was unquestionably violently, insane” he is entitled to a proper trial to judicially determine that fact. If the alleged insane person is so violently insane as to endanger himself or others or to be dangerous to the safety of the community, then he could be safely restrained under Section 9336, supra, which provides:
“* * * if the affidavit filed in compliance with Section 9335 of this act states that the alleged insane person is so deranged as to endanger himself or others or would be dangerous to the safety of the community by being at large and is not being confined or restrained, the Judge or Clerk of the Probate Court may issue a warrant authorizing the sheriff to apprehend such alleged insane person and confine him or her in some suitable place for such time as may be necessary to carry to a determination the proceedings to inquire into the condition of the said alleged insane person and may, if in the opinion of the judge issuing the warrant it is necessary, authorize one or more assistants to be employed.”
I agree with the majority opinion that the verified information or statement was sufficient to try the issue of the petitioner’s alleged insanity. I, therefore, would remand the petitioner to the sheriff of Jefferson County so that the issue of his sanity could be tried upon proper notice in the probate court of that county.