Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Rizer

OPINION FILED AUGUST 19, 1980.

IN RE ARDEN RIZER. — (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,

v.

ARDEN RIZER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.)



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. CORNELIUS J. COLLINS, Judge, presiding.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE PERLIN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal by the respondent, Arden Rizer, from an order of the circuit court of Cook County which found him to be in need of hospitalization for mental treatment. The sole issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in denying respondent's motion to strike the testimony of the examining psychiatrist.

For reasons hereinafter set forth, we reverse.

On August 20, 1979, Evelyn Louise Rizer, the respondent's wife, by the Cook County State's Attorney, *fn1 filed, apparently pursuant to section 3-701 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1978 Supp., ch. 91 1/2, par. 3-701), a petition for the involuntary admission of respondent to a mental health facility. The petition alleged that the respondent was mentally ill and because of his illness was reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or another in the near future. The petition further alleged that respondent was in need of immediate admission to a mental health facility for the prevention of such harm. Pursuant to the petition respondent was taken into custody and detained for examination and evaluation.

In support of the petition the State submitted two physicians' certificates, one executed by a Dr. Chung and the other by a Dr. Mohan. Both Dr. Chung and Dr. Mohan had examined the respondent and had certified him to be subject to involuntary admission to a mental health facility. Both certificates contained the following printed "boilerplate" statement:

"If this examination was done for purposes of a first certificate, I personally informed the above-named individual of the purpose of this examination and that he/she did not have to speak to me, and that any statements made might be related in court as to that person's clinical condition or need for service. Additionally, if the person is asserted to be mentally retarded and dangerous I advised him/her of the right to first speak with an attorney, relative or friend."

On August 23, 1979, at the hearing on the petition, Dr. Mohan was the only examining physician who testified. His testimony, however, differed from the statement contained in the certificate executed by him. During re-cross-examination by the respondent's counsel, Dr. Mohan testified:

"Q. Doctor, did you tell him that he didn't have to talk to you?

A. No, I just introduced myself.

Q. But did you tell him that he didn't have to talk to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell him that any statements he makes will be disclosed at a court hearing on whether he is subject to involuntary admission?

A. Any statements he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.