Court Opinion

ID: 9679805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:08:15.664626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:20.935004
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(Concurring).
I agree with the disposition of this appeal, but find myself impelled to observe that in our original opinion we refused to pass upon the sufficiency of the notice from the superintendent of the hospital. We did not consider or refer to the affidavits of two psychiatrists stating that, in their opinion, the relator is now of sound mind. We may not pass upon them now, but the writer feels that our decision here should not prejudice relator’s right to make another application originally in this court, or by other authorized procedure to present his claim for right to trial on the affidavits of present sanity and to attack, if he so *600desires, the constitutionality of Section 3 of Article 932a, C. C. P., wherein a statement in writing by the superintendent of the hospital is required in order to obtain a trial on the question of whether the committed relator has become sane.
Unfortunately, I cannot bring my brethren to agree with me.