Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ex parte BERRY.
Petitioner seeks relief by habeas corpus from what he contends is cruel and unusual punishment imposed upon him by the Adult Authority as a condition of that board fixing the term to be served by him. In this behalf petitioner alleges that at the time of his commitment he was suffering from a venereal disease (syphilis), that he was treated in prison for this disease by one Dr. Kulcher and discharged as cured over two years ago, that previous spinal tests have been negative, but that while Dr. Kulcher had declared that petitioner is not in need of further treatment and is cured one Dr. Schmidt, a doctor employed by the Department of Corrections and practicing in San Quentin, has insisted that petitioner submit to another spinal fluid test and the Adult Authority refuses to fix petitioner's term until he has done so. It is further alleged that this test is unnecessary and will result in severe head pains and illness for several days.
We have concluded that petitioner is entitled to no relief. The most that appears is a difference of medical opinion which the Adult Authority has resolved against petitioner. We cannot say that it is an unreasonable requirement for the Adult Authority to impose on a prisoner, who has suffered from a highly infectious disease like syphilis, that before fixing his term he shall be subjected to any standard test to determine definitely whether he still suffers from that disease.
The writ is discharged.
DOOLING, Justice.
NOURSE, P. J., and GOODELL, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Cr. 2846.
Decided: October 09, 1952
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)