# McDuffie v. Berzzarins

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 2, 1975 · 43 Ohio St. 2d 23

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755546

## Case

- **Full name:** McDuffie v. Berzzarins
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 2, 1975
- **Citations:** 43 Ohio St. 2d 23; 72 Ohio Op. 2d 13; 330 N.E.2d 667; 1975 Ohio LEXIS 534
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebbbzze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755546

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding collateral consequences subsequent to involuntary confinement permitted petition be heard in that narrow context only
- holding commitment issue not moot due to collateral consequences

## Opinion text

William B. Brown, J.,
dissenting. I dissent, first, from the majority’s decision to assume jurisdiction over this appeal where petitioner’s release from confinement has rendered his habeas corpus proceeding nonjusticiable (In re Popp [1973], 35 Ohio St. 2d 142 , syllabus).
Secondly, if petitioner were presently confined and his petition therefore properly invoked the jurisdiction of this court, then I would dissent from the majority’s decision to apply ordinary criminal law waiver principles to an alleged “mentally ill individual.” That term is defined in R. C. 5122.01(A) as follows:
“ [A]n individual having an illness which substantially impairs the capacity of the person to use self-control, judgment, and discretion in the conduct of his affairs, and social relations, and includes ‘lunacy,’ ‘unsoundness of mind,’ ‘insanity,’ and also cases in which such lessening of capacity for control is caused by such addiction to narcotics, sedatives, alcohol, or stimulants as to make it necessary for such person to be under treatment, care, supervision, guidance, or control.”
Although, the majority refers to “our continuing examination of problems in the area of mental health and commitment,” I consider its opinion to be yet another snare for the alleged mentally-ill individual. Henceforth, the absence of counsel at a commitment hearing will cause no *28 concern if “waiver” can be established by a “rational and reasonable man” standard.
1 find it ludicrous to even contemplate a waiver under such circumstances, because anyone who would waive counsel at such a bearing is probably incapable of understanding his perilous circumstances, and if so incapacitated, should be supplied with counsel as a matter of course.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755546. Public record. Not legal advice.