{
  "id": 1664785,
  "name": "Roger MEARS, County Judge, Pulaski County, Arkansas v. ARKANSAS STATE HOSPITAL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mears v. Arkansas State Hospital",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-29",
  "docket_number": "79-5",
  "first_page": "844",
  "last_page": "847",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 Ark. 844"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "581 S.W.2d 339"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 827",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672735
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0827-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 Ark. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718597
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/228/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 Ark. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1447061
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/203/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 Ark. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1627288
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678861
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 Ark. 707",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1621248
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/258/0707-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678971
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0016-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 297,
    "char_count": 4134,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.87,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.73046754511347e-07,
      "percentile": 0.83107837561186
    },
    "sha256": "ebbc20ef497619427190dbc30d5214f7d284585a271ffa5621dd8a95c7267ca8",
    "simhash": "1:df7f98b34968aad3",
    "word_count": 693
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:31:48.026206+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Purtle, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Roger MEARS, County Judge, Pulaski County, Arkansas v. ARKANSAS STATE HOSPITAL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe issue on this appeal is the interpretation of Ark. Grim. Code \u00a7 41-605 (9) (1976). Before its amendment in 1977, it read in pertinent part: \u201cThe compensation of persons making or assisting in the examination . . . . shall be paid by the state.\u201d This statute was in effect between January, 1976, and June, 1977. During this time the appellee hospital billed Pulaski County for the \u201cnecessary maintenance costs of room and board\u201d for 54 criminal defendants committed to it for mental examinations. The county refused to remit payment. The trial court held that the claims should be paid by the county, and we agree.\nFor reversal appellant argues that this statute should be interpreted to require the state and not the county to pay these costs for these criminal commitments. He argues that \u00a7 41-605 (9) is ambiguous and, therefore, should be construed as requiring the state to pay all costs of the commitments rather than merely the compensation of the persons who made or assisted in the examinations. A statute must be given its usual and ordinary meaning. City of North Little Rock v. Montgomery, 261 Ark. 16, 546 S.W. 2d 154 (1977). We have no authority to construe a statute to mean other than what it says, if it is unambiguous. Weston v. State, 258 Ark. 707, 528 S.W. 2d 412 (1975). The commentary to a statute does not control its plain meaning. Britt v. State, 261 Ark. 488, 549 S.W. 2d 84 (1977). Here the statute requires only that the state pay for the \u201cpersons making or assisting in the examination. \u201d It says nothing about the maintenance costs of room and board. In our view the statute is plain and unambiguous as to the extent of the state\u2019s responsibility.\nNeither do we think that the enactment of \u00a7 41-605 (9) impliedly repealed the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-1301 (Repl. 1977) and Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 59-404 (Repl. 1971), which provide that the county is to bear the costs of mental examinations of criminal defendants. Implied repeals are not favored. Selig v. Powell, 253 Ark. 555, 489 S.W. 2d 484 (1972). To ascertain the intent of the legislature, we examine the statute historically, as well as the contemporaneous conditions at the time of its enactment, consequences of interpretation, and other matters of common knowledge within the limits of our jurisdiction. Prewitt v. Warfield, 203 Ark. 137, 156 S.W. 2d 238 (1941). Counties historically have borne the costs of mental examinations when criminal defendants are committed for observation. \u00a7\u00a7 43-1301 and 59-404. Also Campbell, County Judge v. Arkansas State Hospital, 228 Ark. 205, 306 S.W. 2d 313 (1957). Counties are obligated to pay for costs of the administration of justice where required to do so by the legislature. Mears v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827, 569 S.W. 2d 91 (1978). The legislature, by enacting \u00a7 41-605 (9), as evidenced by the commentary, sought to \u201cminimize\u201d those costs to the county as a factor influencing the decision by a trial judge to commit a criminal defendant for a mental examination. It did not eliminate payments by the county of all cost factors. Here, as indicated, we interpret \u00a7 41-605 (9), as originally enacted, as mandating the state to pay only the costs of personnel making or assisting in the mental examination. That leaves the unassigned costs to the county for payment. Consequently, if the legislature intended for \u00a7 41-605 (9) to be a complete substitute for \u00a7\u00a7 43-1301 and 59-404, then there would be no provision for the assignment of responsibility for the remainder of the costs of examination; i.e., the \u201cnecessary maintenance costs of room and board\u201d as sought here. This would be an impractical result which we think the legislature did not intend. The court was correct in its interpretation of the statutes involved.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Purtle, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilbur C. \u201cDub\u201d Bentley, Pros. Atty., by: John Wesley Hall, Deputy. Pros. Atty., for appellant.",
      "Hall, Tucker, Lovell & Alsobrook, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Roger MEARS, County Judge, Pulaski County, Arkansas v. ARKANSAS STATE HOSPITAL\n79-5\n581 S.W. 2d 339\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1979\n(Division II)\nWilbur C. \u201cDub\u201d Bentley, Pros. Atty., by: John Wesley Hall, Deputy. Pros. Atty., for appellant.\nHall, Tucker, Lovell & Alsobrook, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0844-01",
  "first_page_order": 868,
  "last_page_order": 871
}