Nix v. State
Nix v. State
Opinion
Through habeas corpus proceedings, Mr. Nix, a patient, sought his release from confinement at the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility (the facility).
After prior due notice to the patient, a hearing had been held in 1977 at which the patient and his attorney were present. A judgment was promptly rendered, which fully complied with all of the commitment requirements which had been established by Lynch v. Baxley,
Mr. Nix was in attendance at the habeas corpus hearing. The only two witnesses who testified were Mr. Nix and the staff psychiatrist at the facility. The staff psychiatrist swore that it was his opinion from his personal examinations and knowledge of Mr. Nix, who was one of his patients, that the patient suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid type; that Mr. Nix poses a real threat to himself and to others; that the patient should not be released at this time; and that Mr. Nix's prognosis is guarded, but that he still has a chance of improving sufficiently to be released sometime in the future. According to the facility's records, the patient was transferred from Searcy to Taylor Hardin because it was believed that he killed two patients there. The patient testified that he had been in mental facilities for the past twenty-three years, first in Illinois and then in Alabama. In substance, Mr. Nix testified that he is presently sane.
Since Mr. Nix had been lawfully adjudged to be insane by means of the 1977 court proceedings, the burden was upon him in these civil habeas corpus proceedings to prove that he was presently sane, that is, that the basis for his commitment in Alabama had ceased. Nigg v. Smith,
The habeas corpus trial occurred before the circuit judge and, as we have shown, the evidence conflicted. We must presume that the factual findings of the trial judge are correct, and they cannot be disturbed on appeal unless they were so unsupported by the evidence as to be palpably wrong. Johnson v.Cleveland,
We pretermit other matters which were only casually mentioned in the instrument filed in this court by Mr. Nix. Those broad contentions are not supported by argument or by the citation of any authority, and they are without any adverse ruling of the trial court. Mr. Nix attempted to raise them for the first time in this appeal.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by retired Circuit Judge EDWARD N. *Page 405
SCRUGGS, serving on active duty status as a judge of this court under the provisions of §
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Horace Paul Nix v. State of Alabama.
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published