Petitioner in Involuntary Commitment Proceedings Involving a Prisoner

Subject:

Requested By: Ms. Judith L. Kornegay, Special Counsel Dorothea Dix Hospital

Question: In a case involving a prisoner in a state correctional institution who becomes mentally ill and dangerous to himself or others, who is the person responsible for acting as petitioner for involuntary commitment of the prisoner to a treatment facility under Article 5A, Chapter 122?

Conclusion: A staff psychiatrist of the correctional institution must be the petitioner.

For ordinary situations, the initiation of involuntary commitment proceedings to treatment facilities is dealt with by G.S. 122-58.3. Subsection (a) of that statute provides that any person having adequate knowledge may execute the requisite affidavit and petition necessary for the institution of involuntary commitment proceedings. Apparently some discussion has been encountered as to the applicability of this statute to a prisoner in a correctional institution.

G.S.

122-85 addresses the subject of commitment of prisoners directly and serves to resolve the issue with the following language: "(a) A convict who becomes mentally ill and imminently dangerous to himself or others after commitment to any penal institution in the State shall be processed in accordance with Article 5A of this Chapter, as modified by this Section, except when the provisions of Article 5A are manifestly inappropriate. A staff psychiatrist of the prison shall execute the affidavit required by

G.S.

122-58.3, and send it to the Clerk of Superior Court of the county in which the penal facility is located." (Emphasis supplied)

The specific language of the second sentence of G.S. 122-85 (a) — particularly when coupled with the emphasized words in the first sentence — clearly identifies the intent of the General Assembly relative to the involuntary commitment to treatment facilities of prisoners in correctional institutions. As a result of this language, only a staff psychiatrist of such institution is authorized to execute the requisite affidavit and accompanying petition.

The rationale behind this statute is readily apparent after consideration of the nature and location of such type of respondent. This distinction as to the manner of initiation of these proceedings presents no problems under the equal protection clause of the Constitution; further, the statute fully grants a prisoner the due process protection in all succeeding proceedings vital to deprivation of any of his rights.

Rufus L. Edmisten Attorney General

William F. O’Connell Special Deputy Attorney General