Court Opinion

ID: 9715811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:15:00.965112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:38.369408
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Emmert, J.
I concur in Chief Justice Achor’s opinion that the trial court’s judgment that appellant was not a criminal sexual psychopathic person may now be reviewed in the appeal from the final judgment. How*286ever, I believe the judgment should be affirmed for other reasons.
In State ex rel. Savery etc. v. Criminal Court of Marion County (1955), 234 Ind. 632, 130 N. E. 2d 128, a concurring opinion was based on the premise that Ch. 124 of the 1949 Acts, §§9-3401 — 9-3412, Burns’ 1956 Replacement, is unconstitutional in its entirety, and that this court should properly notice it is void and not the law of this jurisdiction. As long as we fail to take judicial notice of the Constitution with reference to this Act we are going to have many appeals involving action by trial courts done without authority of law. The matter is of such grave importance that it should be decided by this court without waiting for it to be raised by counsel. I see no need of the public incurring further costs and expenses in appeals which may be avoided if we decide the Act is unconstitutional. For the reasons stated in the concurring opinion in the Savery case, the appellant had no rights under the criminal sexual psychopathic act, and the action of the trial court was clearly harmless.
Note. — Reported in 139 N. E. 2d 554.