dissenting.
The majority begins its analysis of this case by concluding that OCGA § 37-3-150 conflicts with OCGA §§ 5-3-2 and 5-3-3, but such a conclusion is unnecessary. It is an established rule of statutory construction that statutes in pari materia are to be construed together and harmonized, Ga. Marble Co. v. Whitlock, 260 Ga. 350, 354 (392 SE2d 881) (1990), and these statutes, which all deal with appeals from the probate courts, may be so construed and harmonized.
In 1969, the legislature deleted applicants for commitment (here, GMHI) from the list in new Chapter 88-5 of persons having the right to appeal; at this time, the Code section appeared under a new heading entitled “Rights of Patients.” It is quite logical that applicants for commitment should have been deleted from this section since, as the majority points out, the rights of applicants for commitment have no place in a “patients rights” Code section. In other words, it appears quite possible, if not probable, that the legislature deleted applicants for commitment from the list, not because it intended to take from them the right of appeal, but because it makes no sense to include them in a Code section entitled “Rights of Patients.” There was, in addition, no need for the legislature to shift this right of appeal to another Code section because the right of appeal existed already in the provisions of OCGA § 5-3-2 et seq., Code sections which this Court has held apply to all cases. Hobbs v. Cody, 45 Ga. 478 (1872).
Our conclusion is supported by the rule of statutory construction that any proposed construction of a statute must not result in unreasonable consequences and must square with common sense and sound reasoning. Implicit in the majority opinion is the holding that even though the state has the right to appeal decisions of the superior court in commitment cases,5 it does not, as does the patient, have a right to appeal a decision of the probate court in such cases. The logic for such a holding is elusive. It makes little sense for the legislature to give with one hand to the patient a protection from the state and then to take back with the other hand this protection; one would think that if the legislature had removed applicants for commitment from the list of those who could appeal because it was concerned about patients’ rights, that same concern for the patient would mani*597fest itself on the superior court level. Beyond this, an interpretation which has the legislature granting to one side a legal right which it withholds from the other betrays on its face a constitutional infirmity.6 Rather than trying to get around this infirmity by assuming that the legislature intended to take from the state the right of appeal, we can construe these statutes so that they work in harmony as part of a single, logical system of appellate review.
Decided November 8, 1993 Reconsideration denied December 2, 1993. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, William C. Joy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Patricia Downing, Assistant Attorney General, Davis & Davis, Jefferson J. Davis, for appellants. Karen S. Byers, for appellee.Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to the majority’s holding that the Georgia Mental Health Institute does not have the right to appeal under OCGA §§ 5-3-2 and 5-3-3.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hunstein and Justice Carley join in this dissent.
See OCGA § 5-6-33. According to the majority opinion, if the patient prevails in the probate court, there is no appeal available to the state. On the other hand, if the patient loses in the probate court, she may appeal de novo to superior court and if she wins in superior court, the state can appeal. Thus, if commitment is denied by the probate court, the state cannot appeal; but if commitment is denied by the superior court, the state can appeal. What legislative purpose is served by this state of affairs?
Those few cases (none from Georgia) which address this issue insist that the right to appeal must be reciprocal to prevent a lack of due process. See, for example, Caddell v. Fiscal Court of Whitley County, 79 SW2d 407; Illinois Liquor Control Comm. v. Chicago’s Last Liquor Store, 88 NE2d 15; 4 CJS, § 168. We acknowledge that the legislature may deny the state a right of appeal which it gives to individuals, but, absent an express denial of the state’s right to appeal, we need not and should not conclude that the legislature intended to withhold the right of appeal from the state.