WILKINSON v STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 83-41 I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A H O R F H F OTN 1983 KATHLEEN RACHEL WILKINSON, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t , vs . STATE O M N A A F O T N , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent. Appeal from- D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Missoula Honorable J a c k L . Green, Judge p r e s i d i n * . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Nick A. R o t e r i n q a r g u e d , S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana For Respondent: Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Xontana R o b e r t L. Deschamps 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a , Montana Karen S. Townsend, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r q u e d . M i s s o u l a , Montana SubmittedDecided- Clerk June 2 , 198 3 A u g u s t 1, 1983 Mr. J u s t i c e L . C. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . The Department appeals from Judicial an of Institutions order District, by financially responsible for the District the Missoula of County, costs State Court of declaring incurred of Montana the Fourth the Department as a result of the b i r t h of d e f e n d a n t ' s baby. On S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l e a t o t h e charge of negligent homicide. The District Court sentenced d e f e n d a n t t o t e n y e a r s w i t h two y e a r s s u s p e n d e d , t o be s e r v e d a t a women's correctional facility chosen by the Department of Institutions. B e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t was s o o n t o g i v e b i r t h and b e c a u s e t e s t i mony a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g medical relationship with her indicated t h a t s h e had a s t r o n g physician, the District Court a l l o w e d h e r t o r e m a i n a t t h e M i s s o u l a County j a i l u n t i l a f t e r t h e birth of her child. S h e was remanded to the c u s t o d y of the M i s s o u l a County s h e r i f f and s u b s e q u e n t l y g a v e b i r t h t o h e r c h i l d a t t h e M i s s o u l a Community H o s p i t a l . taken to the Women's Correctional On O c t o b e r 2 8 , 1 9 8 2 , s h e was Center at Warm Springs, Montana. The D e p a r t m e n t of e x p e n s e s of the birth. Institutions refused to pay the medical M i s s o u l a County moved f o r a n o r d e r from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t pay t h e m e d i c a l expenses. After a show-cause hearing, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s , and d e c r e e : "FINDINGS OF FACT "1. The D e f e n d a n t , K a t h l e e n R a c h e l W i l k i n s o n , was found g u i l t y by a p l e a of g u i l t y t o t h e o f f e n s e of N e g l i g e n t H o m i c i d e , a f e l o n y , and s e n t e n c e d on t h e 1 0 t h day of S e p t e m b e r , 1982 t o a t e r m of t e n ( 1 0 ) y e a r s a t Montana S t a t e P r i s o n w i t h two of t h o s e y e a r s s u s p e n d e d . " 2 . The D e f e n d a n t , o n S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 2 , was o r d e r e d t o s e r v e h e r time a t t h e women's p r i s o n f a c i l i t y a t Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l . " 3 . The D e f e n d a n t was o r d e r e d r e t a i n e d i n t h e M i s s o u l a County J a i l u n t i l a f t e r t h e b i r t h of h e r c h i l d s o t h a t h e r o b s t e t r i c i a n c o u l d continue to care for her. " 4 . The D e f e n d a n t was o r d e r e d t o r e m a i n i n M i s s o u l a C o u n t y and n o t be t r a n s f e r r e d t o Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e Hospital u n t i l her doctor determined t h a t it would n o t be d e t r i m e n t a l t o h e r i n t e r e s t s o r t h e i n t e r e s t s of h e r c h i l d t o be transferred. " 5 . The D e f e n d a n t was t a k e n t o M i s s o u l a Community H o s p i t a l f o r t h e b i r t h of h e r c h i l d on O c t o b e r 23, 1982. "6. E x p e n s e s f o r m e d i c a l and s e c u r i t y c o s t s i n t h e amount of T h r e e Thousand F o u r Hundred E i g h t y - t w o and 4 7 / 1 0 0 t h D o l l a r s ( $ 3 , 4 8 2 . 4 7 ) w e r e i n c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e b i r t h of t h e Defendant's son. "7. The D e f e n d a n t was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e women's p r i s o n f a c i l i t y on t h e 2 8 t h d a y of O c t o b e r , 1982 a f t e r her p h y s i c i a n s t a t e d s h e c o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d . "CONCLUSIONS OF L W A "1. The D e f e n d a n t became a s t a t e p r i s o n e r on t h e 1 0 t h d a y of S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 8 2 upon p a s s i n g of sentence. " 2 . The D e f e n d a n t ' s s t a y i n t h e M i s s o u l a C o u n t y J a i l and o r t h e M i s s o u l a Community H o s p i t a l from S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 2 u n t i l O c t o b e r 2 8 , 1 9 8 2 , was a t e m p o r a r y s t a y f o r a s t a t e p r i s o n inmate. "3. The Montana D e p a r t m e n t of I n s t i t u t i o n s i s f i n a n c i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e m e d i c a l and s e c u r i t y c o s t s i n c u r r e d as a r e s u l t of t h e b i r t h of t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s c h i l d . "ORDER "The Montana D e p a r t m e n t of I n s t i t u t i o n s i s h e r e b y o r d e r e d t o assume t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l l m e d i c a l and s e c u r i t y c o s t s i n c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e b i r t h of t h e s o n of Kathleen Rachel W i l kinson. "The D e p a r t m e n t is f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t o r e m i t t o M i s s o u l a Community H o s p i t a l t h e sum of Two Thousand E i g h t y - f i v e and 8 7 / 1 0 0 t h s D o l l a r s ( $ 2 , 0 8 5 . 8 7 ) ; t o D r . Thomas A. B a u m g a r t n e r t h e sum of Four Hundred and Sixty Dollars ( $ 4 6 0 . 0 0 ) ; and t o M i s s o u l a County ( G u a r d s ) t h e sum of Nine Hundred Fifty-four dollars ($954.00). The sole issue on Institutions is r e s p o n s i b l e incurred as a despite the result fact that is appeal of for the she whether the Department of t h e m e d i c a l and s e c u r i t y c o s t s birth was not of the defendant's delivered to the baby, Women's C o r r e c t i o n a l C e n t e r a t Warm S p r i n g s p r i o r t o t h e b i r t h . The l a w of Montana is c l e a r t h a t " [ o l n c e a v a l i d s e n t e n c e is imposed, unless the court lacks specifically (1964), 1 4 3 Mont. jurisdiction authorized 528, 540, committed Institutions. 704." 4 3 , 44. the defendant vacate statute. 3 9 1 P.2d ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 2 4 2 , 593 P.2d judgment, by to o r modify State v. S t a t e v. it Porter Downing Here t h e c o u r t , i n i t s t o t h e Montana D e p a r t m e n t of From t h i s it is c l e a r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e S t a t e as t h e r e is no way f o r t h e j u d g e to c h a n g e h i s d e c i s i o n , a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e j u d g m e n t . This is point illustrated most vividly a by line of W a s h i n g t o n cases w h e r e i t h a s b e e n s t a t e d t h a t : " T h i s c o u r t s a i d i n J a n u a r y v. P o r t e r , 7 5 Wash.2d 7 6 8 , 4 5 3 P.2d 8 7 6 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , t h a t upon t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment and s e n t e n c e o f -imprisonment, l e g a l a u t h o r i t y over t h e accused passes b x o p e r a t i o n o f law t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t of t i o n s -o f Social - I n s t i t u - (now the-tmxt a n d H e a l t h S e r v i c e s ) ----B o a r d o T P r i s o n and t h e Terms a n d P a r o l e s , and t h a t t h o s e a g e n c i e s of t h e e x e c u t i v e branch bear f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e x e c u t i n g t h e j u d g m e n t and s e n t e n c e o r granting parole. " ( E m p h a s i s added ) Kanekoa v . W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of S o c i a l and H e a l t h S e r v i c e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 95 Wash.2d 445, 626 P.2d 6 , 7 ( s e e a l s o I n Re Bush ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 26 Wash.App. 4 8 6 , 616 P.2d 6 6 6 , I n R e t h e W e l f a r e o f Lowe ( 1 9 7 8 ) , .2d 8 2 4 , 5 7 6 P.2d 6 5 . ) --- S i m i l a r l y , b e c a u s e of lar case, - circumstances i n t h i s particu- t h e D e p a r t m e n t of I n s t i t u t i o n s must bear t h e medical c o s t s f o r t h e b i r t h of d e f e n d a n t ' s c h i l d . I t m u s t be n o t e d t h a t o u r h o l d i n g h e r e a p p l i e s s o l e l y t o t h e particular expenses suggesting a general in question. method s i b i l i t y of s t a t e p r i s o n e r s . for W are neither e determining %-RJ the ourt's / t . w Q Y (& &J respon- da t t e r . is affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e financial nor T h a t is a l e g i s l a t i v e For t h e reasons s t a t e d above, W e concur: setting judgment Justices Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissenting: I I would dissent. hold that Missoula responsible for the expenditures. County is The unfortunate result here is that the Department of Instituti,ons, without even having been notified of the District Court decision in time to object, has been saddled with paying the costs of hospitalization and cost of providing guards at the hospital. The result not only citations and is unfair quotations of it is papered authority that over with have no application to the questions presented to the District Court and to this Court. At the sentencing hearing it was the defense attorney and the deputy county attorney who requested the District Court to take the action it did. The District Court did so without ever conferring with anyone from the Department of Institutions. Had the Department of Institutions been notified of the contemplated action rather than the completed action, it is possible that it could have made other and satisfactory arrangements for care of the mother and the baby through the time of delivery. The authority cited by the ma:jority has no application to the facts presented here. Here the District Court committed the defendant to the Department of Institutions. This should have meant that the defendant was in the custody and control of the Department and that the Department could have made appropriate arrangements itself for the proper care of the mother and expected child. The question here is not whether custody passed by operation of law to the Department of Institutions upon the passing of sentence of imprisonment. The question is whether the District Court had the authority to grant custody and control of defendant to the Department on the one hand, but on the other to take it away by never notifing the Department that it had made arrangments for the custody of the defendant up to the time that the baby was delivered. By the action it took, the District Court deprived the Department of any meaningful opportunity to object to the Court's decision. In later ruling that the Department must bear the hospitalization and guard expenses the District Court simply sanctified the time-honored rule that if possible make the State pay rather than the local unit of government, a governmental application of the deep pocket theory. This Court has of course, ratified that action by approving the ruling that the State rather than the county must pay. Here the District Court made a mistake and I have no doubt it had the authority to correct its own mistake by a ruling that truly passed the custody and control of defendant to the Department of Institutions. Had the Department been timely notified of the decision it could have objected and the District Court could have amended its decision to truly turn custody and control of defendant over to the Department of Institutions. I doubt that the Department would have been so callous as not to take care of the real needs of the expectant mother, but it was never given the opportunity to act. The county, not the State, should pay.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.