| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Wayne B. v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute (08/29/2008) sp-6300
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before
publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are
requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
| WAYNE B., | ) |
| ) Supreme Court No. S- 12677 | |
| Appellant, | ) |
| ) Superior Court No. 3AN-07- 247 PR | |
| v. | ) |
| ) O P I N I O N | |
| ALASKA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, | ) |
| ) No. 6300 August 29, 2008 | |
| Appellee. | ) |
| ) | |
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District,
Anchorage, Peter A. Michalski, Judge.
Appearances: James B. Gottstein, Law Project
for Psychiatric Rights, Inc., Anchorage, for
Appellant. Elizabeth Russo, Assistant
Attorney General, Talis J. Colberg, Attorney
General, Anchorage, for Appellee.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews,
Eastaugh, Carpeneti, and Winfree, Justices.
MATTHEWS, Justice.
In early 2007 the State petitioned to have Wayne B.1
involuntarily committed for thirty days, alleging that he was
psychotic and unable to meet his basic needs. At the same time
the State petitioned for court approval to administer
psychotropic drugs to Wayne B. during the term of his commitment.
A hearing on both petitions was held before a superior court
standing master. On March 1, 2007, the master recommended that
the petitions be granted and filed proposed findings and orders.
On March 2 the superior court signed the orders proposed by the
master.
Wayne B. presents two points on appeal. He contends
that (1) the orders were erroneously entered because no
transcript of the masters hearing was filed with the superior
court as required by Civil Rule 53(d)(1), and (2) the courts
finding that he was gravely disabled was clearly erroneous.
Both orders appealed from have expired and this appeal
is moot.2 But we believe that Wayne B.s point regarding the need
for a transcript should be decided because it is an important and
recurring issue and application of the mootness doctrine would
shield it from appellate review.3
Civil Rule 53(d)(1) provides that a master must prepare
a report upon the matter submitted to him and must file the
report with the clerk of court. In non-jury cases the master
must also file a transcript of the proceedings and of the
evidence.4 This rule was not complied with in this case. The
question is whether this failure was reversible error.
We conclude that it was. We take a strict view of the
transcript filing requirement because, as we noted in Wetherhorn
v. Alaska Psychiatric Institute, involuntary commitment for a
mental disorder is a massive curtailment of liberty.5 Given the
nature of the liberty interest at stake, it was critical that the
superior court have full knowledge of the evidence that was said
to justify committing Wayne B. to a mental institution.
Rule 53(d)(1) permits a judge in an order of reference
to direct that no transcript of masters proceedings be filed.
This grant of discretion could suggest that a more forgiving
standard should be applied where the transcript requirement is
not followed. To be sure, an order of reference waiving a
transcript may be made where case-specific facts justify such a
waiver. But in involuntary commitments, such as the present, it
is difficult to imagine circumstances that would justify such a
waiver. We except from this observation cases where a judge
intends to listen to a recording of the proceedings.
Where no transcript is filed, but a judge actually
listens to a recording of the full proceedings conducted by a
master, the error in failing to comply with the transcript
requirement should be considered cured. The adjudicative
responsibilities of a judge can be fulfilled at least as well
based on a recording of proceedings as from a transcript.6 But
there is no indication that this occurred in this case.
For the reasons stated we VACATE the March 2, 2007
orders committing Wayne B. and requiring that he submit to the
administration of psychotropic drugs. Since the orders have
expired, there is no need to remand this case for reconsideration
of the underlying petitions.
_______________________________
1 A pseudonym has been used to protect the privacy of the
appellant.
2 Cf. Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 156 P.3d
371, 380-81 (Alaska 2007) (concluding that the substantive appeal
was moot because the thirty-day period for which Wetherhorn was
committed ha[d] long since passed).
3 See Fairbanks Fire Fighters Assn, Local 1324 v. City of
Fairbanks, 48 P.3d 1165, 1168-69 (Alaska 2002) (analyzing the
public interest exception to mootness).
4 Civil Rule 53(d) provides in relevant part:
(1) Contents and Filing. The master
shall prepare a report upon the matters
submitted to the master by the order of
reference and, if required to make findings
of fact and conclusions of law, the master
shall set them forth in the report. The
master shall file the report with the clerk
of the court and in an action to be tried
without a jury, unless otherwise directed by
the order of reference, shall file with it a
transcript of the proceedings and of the
evidence and the original exhibits. The
clerk shall forthwith mail to all parties
notice of the filing.
(2) In Non-Jury Actions. In an action
to be tried without a jury the court shall
accept the masters findings unless clearly
erroneous. Within 10 days after being served
with notice of the filing of the report any
party may serve written objections thereto
upon the other parties. Application to the
court for an action upon the report and upon
objections thereto shall be by motion and
upon notice as prescribed in Rule 77. The
court may adopt the report or may modify it
or may reject it in whole or in part or may
receive further evidence or may recommit it
with instructions.
5 156 P.3d at 375 (quoting Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S.
504, 509 (1972)).
6 Listening to a recording of proceedings is much more
time consuming than reading a transcript; this may explain the
rules preference for a transcript.
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
