Washington Law Review
Insane Persons—Confinement in Penitentiary—Persons Insane at Time of Commitment—Statutory Provisions
D was acquitted of murder by reason of his insanity. The jury returned the statutory special verdict finding that his "insanity or mental irresponsibility" did not exist at the time of the trial but that there was such likelihood of a relapse or recurrence of the condition that D was not a safe person to be at large. D was committed to the state penitentiary as a criminally insane person. Soon after commitment he sought to be discharged from confinement under the procedure set out in RCW 10.76.070 [RRS § 6970; PPC § 133-11]. The prosecuting attorney petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the superior court from proceeding with a jury trial for determining D's entitlement to discharge pursuant to the terms of that statute. Held: Writ granted. D's situation is not within the terms of RCW 10.76.070, and therefore the superior court is without authority to proceed with a jury trial on D's petition for discharge. State v. Tugas, 139 Wash. Dec. 219, 234 P. 2d 1082 (1951).
Ray M. Dunlap,
Insane Persons—Confinement in Penitentiary—Persons Insane at Time of Commitment—Statutory Provisions,
27 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol27/iss2/5