State v. Peacock

Citation11 A. 270,50 N.J.L. 34
PartiesSTATE v. PEACOCK.
Decision Date06 November 1887
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

(Syllabus by the Court.)

This writ brings up a judgment of the court of quarter sessions of Burlington county; LEE, BLACK, and GLASGOW, Judges. The defendant, George H. Peacock, was indicted for an assault with intent to commit a rape, and the trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. The defendant at the time of the beginning of the trial was at large upon bail. He was present during the first day of the trial, but absent thereafter during its progress. The trial was conducted by his attorneys, one of whom consented that the verdict should be taken in the absence of the defendant and his counsel On the last day of the trial an offer was made by his counsel to prove by a brother of the defendant the insanity of the defendant at the time of his disappearance, to rebut the presumption that defendant's absence was from a sense of guilt. This offer the court overruled, but stated that they might prove on behalf of the defendant his acts and conversation to show his excited state and condition at or about the time of his leaving.

Jacob C. Hendrickson, for plaintiff in error. Charles E Hendrickson, C. H. Bergen, Prosecutor of the Pleas, and M. R. Sooy, for defendant.

REED, J In the argument addressed to the court the counsel presented three points as their grounds for reversal. First, that defendant was shown to the court at a certain stage of the trial, in an aspect that demanded a suspension of the trial till the question of his present sanity was settled. Second, that the court erred in rejecting the offer of testimony to prove his then condition of insanity, which proof was relevant as a part of the case of the defense. Third, that the trial could not proceed, nor the verdict be taken, in the absence of the defendant.

It is undoubtedly the law that a person who by reason of insanity is unable to comprehend his position, and to make his defense, cannot be placed upon trial for a crime. If the court either before or during the progress of such a trial, either from observation or upon the suggestion of counsel, have facts brought to its attention which raise a doubt of the condition of defendant's mind in this respect, the question should be settled before another step is taken. The method of settling this preliminary question, where it is not the subject of statutory regulation, is within the discretion of the trial court. The court can itself enter upon the inquiry, or submit the question to another jury impaneled for that purpose. Freeman v. People, 4 Denio, 9; Bonds v. State, Mart. & Y. 143; Com. v. Braley, 1 Mass. 103.

Whether the action of the court is the subject of exception, it is not now necessary to decide, for in the present case no objection was made to the action of the court in respect to a suspension of the proceedings, nor was there any request made by the counsel who defended him, that such an inquiry should be instituted. There was nothing proved that displayed such a condition of mental derangement that the court of its own motion was called upon to direct a further inquiry into the matter. No court would be bound to stop, or be justified in arresting, the progress of a trial by a mere suggestion of, but in the absence of any substantial evidence of, the existence of a degree of mental disorder which would unfit the defendant from conducting his cause, or instructing his counsel. There is nothing in the first position taken that calls for further remark.

In respect to the second point, namely, that the proffer of evidence that the defendant was insane was overruled, I also think there was no injurious error. This offer was not made as a defense to the charge in the way of proving that the defendant was incapable of a criminal intent, so far as concerned the commission of the act charged, by reason of insanity existing at the time of the commission of the act. The ground upon which the testimony was relevant was that it went to explain an act of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Lucas
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1959
    ...to comprehend his position, to consult intelligently with counsel and plan his defense, cannot be put to trial. State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 11 A. 270 (Sup.Ct.1887), reversed on other grounds, 50 N.J.L. 653, 14 A. 893 (E. & A.1888); State v. Novel, 102 N.J.L. 659, 133 A. 274 (E. & A.1926......
  • State v. Butler
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1958
    ...hearing as to the competency of a defendant to be a witness and to conduct his defense has always been recognized. State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 11 A. 270 (Sup.Ct.1887), reversed on other grouns 50 N.J.L. 653, 14 A. 893 (E. & A. 1888); State v. Noel, 3 N.J.Misc. 1154, 131 A. 70 (O. & T. 1......
  • Aponte v. State
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1959
    ...State v. Auld, 2 N.J. 426, 435, 67 A.2d 175 (1949); State v. Noel, 102 N.J.L. 659, 668, 133 A. 274 (E. & A. 1926); State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 36, 11 A. 270 (Sup.Ct.1887), reversed on other grounds, 50 N.J.L. 653, 14 A. 893 (E. & A. The proceedings here were conducted under N.J.S. 2A:16......
  • Thomas v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1918
    ... ... may waive his presence at the trial, and that [117 Miss. 544] ... it is not error to proceed in his absence. We cite here a few ... of the cases so holding in other states. Hair v ... State, 16 Neb. 601, 21 N.W. 464; State v ... Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34 11 A. 270; Boyd v ... State, 153 Ala. 41, 45 So. 591; Hill v ... State, 17 Wis. 675, 86 Am. Dec. 736; ... Stoddard v. State, 132 Wis. 520, 112 N.W ... 453, 13 Ann. Cas. 1211; State v. Way, 76 ... Kan. 928, 93 P. 159, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 603; People ... v. Bragle, 26 Hun 378; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT