Court Opinion

ID: 9531410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:39.140223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:26.620439
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice (dissenting). The majority would reverse this judgment mainly because (a) in the insanity proceeding the court did not designate Cook’s attorney in the Order, (b) that the hearing was premature, and (c) a certified copy of the insanity proceedings was not attached to the petition for the appointment of a guardian. While these irregularities appear, the evidence conclusively show's that the trial court vigilantly protected the rights of Cook. Counsel was appointed for him by the court, and counsel represented him at the hearing. I pose these questions. Must a raving maniac remain in custody, perhaps in a padded cell, five days or more, before he can be afforded a trial? The effect of the majority opinion is to so hold. What else could his counsel have done for him by being named in the Order that he did not do ? The answer, of course, is nothing. These were mere irregularities committed by the court in the exercise, of its jurisdiction, and do not render the judgments in the priof proceedings, subject to collateral attack. The majority concluding otherwise, I dissent.