Minnesota Supreme Court, 1986

In re Desmond

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 20, 1986 · Wahl

387 N.W.2d 882; 1986 Minn. LEXIS 816 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Patrick W. Kelly, Minneapolis, for appellant., John R. Owen, Asst. Hennepin Co. Atty., Minneapolis, Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., and Julie K. Harris, Sp. Asst., Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 253B.13 — amended 1997

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Minn. Stat. § 253B.13

Opinion of the Court

WAHL, Justice.

John Desmond, a mentally retarded adult committed to Faribault State Hospital, appeals a decision of the court of appeals 381 N.W.2d 57, affirming a trial court order continuing his commitment indeterminately and holding the statutory provision for indeterminate commitment of mentally retarded persons, Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp. 1985), constitutional. We accepted certification of two questions from the court of appeals: (1) Does indeterminate commitment under Minn.Stat. § 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp. 1985) deny mentally retarded persons due process or equal protection of law under the federal or state constitutions?; and (2) Must a guardian ad litem be appointed on behalf of an indeterminately committed mentally retarded person either to protect the patient’s constitutional right to due process or in “the interests of justice” pursuant to Minn.R.Civ. Commitment 13.01?

We considered and decided these issues in the recent cases of In Re Harhut, 385 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 1986) (Minn.Stat. *883§ 253B.13, subd. 2 (Supp. 1985)) (permitting indeterminate commitment of mentally retarded persons does not violate state or federal constitutional protections of equal protection or due process provided certain procedural protections are added) and In Re Fredrickson, — N.W.2d - (Minn., filed June 6, 1986) (guardian ad litem need not be appointed to protect the due process rights of an indeterminately committed mentally retarded person). Harhut and Fredrickson control this case. We therefore answer the certified questions in the negative and affirm the decision of the court of appeals, incorporating the procedural protections mandated by our decision in Harhut.1

Affirmed as modified.

. Harhut requires that: (1) the indeterminately committed mentally retarded patient be continuously represented by counsel throughout the period of commitment: and (2) that such patients receive a judicial review every three years in which the state carries the burden of proof. Harhut, 385 N.W.2d at 312.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.