Alexander v. State

• Citation: 107 P.2d 811,71 Okla.Crim. 47
• Decision Date: 27 November 1940
• Docket Number: A-9970.
• Parties: ALEXANDER v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

107 P.2d 811

71 Okla.Crim. 47

ALEXANDER v. STATE.

No. A-9970.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

November 27, 1940

Syllabus by the Court.

The proceedings, prior to the trial of one charged with murder to test the present sanity of the one charged, is a collateral issue, and as such is not an appealable order. The only effect it can have on such trial is to postpone it, in the event the issue is found for the defendant.

Appeal from District Court Pottawatomie County; J. Knox Byrum Judge.

Jake Alexander was charged with murder. Prior to the trial for murder, the question of the defendant's sanity was submitted. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant sane, and he appeals and the Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed, and case remanded.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Jess L. Pullen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Thos. C. Wyatt, Co. Atty., of Shawnee, for the State.

Randall Pitman, of Shawnee, for defendant.

BAREFOOT Judge.

The appeal in this case was filed in this court on the 18th day of November, 1940. It is an attempted appeal from a hearing before the District Court of Pottawatomie county in which the question of the sanity of said defendant, Jake Alexander, was tried before the court and jury prior to his being tried for murder, with which he stood charged in Pottawatomie county. On the 24th day of September, 1940, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant Jake Alexander sane.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the purported and attempted appeal for the following reasons: "That the petition in error and case-made attached thereto show in their face that this is not an appeal from a final judgment or from an order in which an appeal is allowed; that, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain or hear the same."

Upon the filing of said motion, the same was set for hearing for November 26, 1940. Counsel for defendant has filed a confession admitting that the motion should be sustained, stating that he had come to the conclusion "that the matter of present insanity is a collateral matter and not appealable." This contention is substantiated by the text in 17 Corpus Juris, p. 36, § 3301, where it is said: "Since the judgment upon a collateral issue is not a final judgment from which an appeal or a writ of error will lie, an order or decision based upon an independent trial of the question as to defendant's present sanity, either before trial, or after conviction, is not reviewable, even though accused is found insane by the verdict and is committed to an asylum by an order of the court. Likewise the proceedings and findings on an inquisition to determine defendant's present sanity, held after conviction and sentence, are not reviewable."

In the case of Jordan v. State, 124 Tenn. 81, 135 S.W. 327, 329, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 1115, the court says:

"The question presented by the issue is not whether the defendant can distinguish right from wrong, but is, as explained by the trial judge in another part of his charge whether he is at the time of the investigation

...