Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.

CourtAlabama Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, J.
Citation95 So. 171,209 Ala. 36
PartiesANDERSON v. STATE.
Docket Number6 Div. 481.
Decision Date02 November 1922

95 So. 171

209 Ala. 36

ANDERSON
v.
STATE.

6 Div. 481.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 2, 1922


Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort, Judge.

C. L. Anderson was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed. [95 So. 173]

Count 4 of the indictment is as follows:

"(4) The grand jury of said county further charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Claude L. Anderson feloniously took two $1 bills, of the paper currency of the United States of America; one 50 cent piece, of the silver coin of the United States of America, and 50 cents, in the lawful currency of the United States of America, which said 50 cents consisted of 10-cent pieces of the silver coin of the United States of America and 5-cent pieces of the nickel coin of the United States of America, a more particular description and denomination of which said 50 cents, of the lawful currency of the United States of America [95 So. 174] is to the grand jury unknown, the property of Lloyd Franklin McEachern, from his person, and against his will by violence to his person, or by putting him in such fear as unwillingly to part with the same."

The following charges were refused to defendant by the trial court:

"(4) If the jury believe the evidence, they cannot find the defendant guilty under the fourth count of the indictment."
"(7) If the jury believe the evidence, they cannot find the defendant guilty."
"(9) If the jury believe from the evidence that the mental development of the defendant was arrested by reason of disease, or as a resuit of constitutional psychopathy, and that his mental development is that of a child 8 or 9 years old, he could not, as a matter of law, be held responsible for crime as an adult, but should be considered and treated as a child."
"(11) If, after considering all the evidence carefully, there is in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, he should be given the benefit of said doubt and acquitted.
"(12) If, from all the evidence the jury are not reasonably satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the criminal responsibility of the defendant, they cannot convict him of the crime charged in the indictment.
"(13) Before the jury can convict the defendant of the crime charged, they must be satisfied from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that the defendant is guilty of the crime as charged, but that he was mentally sane, and if the jury, after hearing all the evidence, have a reasonable doubt as to either of these propositions, they cannot convict the defendant of the crime charged in the indictment.
"(14) Before the jury can return a verdict of guilty in this case, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime as charged, and that he was of sound mind at the time said crime was committed.
"(15) If from all the evidence the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the mental soundness of the defendant at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, they cannot find him guilty."

The following statement appears in the court's oral charge:

"For your guidance in determining the issue of insanity under the issue formed by the defendant's plea of insanity, the questions which the jury must determine, or decide from all the evidence on this issue, are as follows:

"First. Was the defendant, at the time of the alleged commission of the crime charged in the indictment, as a matter of fact, afflicted with a disease of the mind, so as to be either idiotic or otherwise insane?
"Second. If he was thus insane, did he, as a matter of fact, know right from wrong, as applied to the particular act in question? If he did not know right from wrong, as applied to the particular act in question, he is not legally responsible for his act, and should not be punished.
"Third. If he did know right from wrong, as applied to the particular act in question, he may, nevertheless, not be legally responsible, if the two following conditions exist together: First. If by reason of the duress or control of such mental disease he had so far lost the power to choose between the right and the wrong and to avoid doing the act in question as that his free agency was at the time destroyed; second, and if, at the same time the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease in relation of cause and effect as to have been produced by such mental disease solely."

B. M. Allen and John T. McEwen, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Ellis & Matthews, of Birmingham, for the State.

THOMAS, J.

The charge was robbery; verdict and judgment were of guilt as charged under the fourth count of the indictment, and punishment was fixed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary. On suggestion of defendant's insanity by his counsel (before sentence) the trial court declined to relieve the defendant from imprisonment in the penitentiary or order his safe custody and removal to the insane hospital on such ground, and sentenced him pursuant to the verdict of the jury. To this action of the court defendant excepted, and the appeal is prosecuted.

It is recited in the judgment that defendant raised no objection as to the drawing of the jury for the trial of the cause before he was formally arraigned, and that it was agreed by defendant in open court that the special venire drawn by the court for the trial of capital cases for March 7, 1921, should be drawn before defendant's arraignment, that no point or objection to same would be raised by defendant to the venire or to the order of the court providing the same, and that no objection was or is duly raised by defendant ( Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36) to the sufficiency of venire or the order therefor. The action of the court as to same is not for review, since the order and drawing of the special venire was without prejudice to defendant. Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 639, 89 So. 43.

A careful consideration of the evidence submitted on the motion for a change of venue and for a new trial on such ground convinces us that no error was committed in denying and overruling the same. No good purpose would be subserved by reviewing the evidence or the decisions of this court on the question. Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362.

Under defendant's plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity," the issue presented [95 So. 175] gives much latitude both to the defendant and the state to introduce evidence of defendant's acts, declarations, and conduct, not only at the time of the offense, but prior and subsequent thereto. McCurry v. Hooper, 12 Ala. 823, 46 Am. Dec. 280; McLean v. State, 16 Ala. 672; McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434, 52 Am. Dec. 180; Braham v. State, 143 Ala. 28, 38 So. 919; Howard v. State, 172 Ala. 402, 55 So. 255, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 990; Russell v. State, 201 Ala. 574, 78 So. 916; 1 Greenl. on Ev. (16th Ed.) p. 58. Text-books on mental diseases, shown to be standard works, may be, and were, introduced in evidence, and extracts therefrom read to the jury. Russell v. State, supra.

The oral charge, though made a part of the record by statute, will not be reviewed unless exception was duly reserved. No such exception being presented by bill of exceptions, as to instructions by oral charge, nothing is presented for review under the act of September 25, 1915, p. 815. Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 639, 89 So. 43; McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387; Ex parte State (Montgomery v. State) 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785; Tucker v. State, 202 Ala. 5, 79 So. 303; Oil Well Supply Co. v. W. Huntsville C. M. Co., 198 Ala. 501, 73 So. 899.

A jury question being presented on the issue of fact of the commission of the offense of robbery by the defendant, charges 4 and 7, requested by him, were properly refused under the issue presented by his plea of not guilty. McMillan v. Aikan, 205 Ala. 35, 88 So. 135.

A further treatment of defendant's responsibility for the crime of which he is charged (and under his plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity") was sought to be presented by refused charges numbered 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. The matter sought to be given the jury in charge 9 was covered by given charges, though it was objectionable in the use of the phrase "should be considered and treated as a child."

It may be said that thought is the legislative power of a human being, just as the will is the executive power of such a life. Insanity, without regard to origin, development, or degree, is a disease of the mind. And when the mental faculties of a human being (of the age of accountability) become impaired, as the result of a lesion of the brain, or by congenital or constitutional psychopathy, or by retarded mental development or otherwise, to the degree recognized by law, the fact of whether or not there is accountability for crime committed by one suffering from such disease of the brain must be determined according to the rules stated in Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 596, 597, 2 So. 854. It was on this theory that the trial was had. Aside from the refusal of foregoing charges, the trial court in the oral charge instructed that "insanity" embraced every species of unsoundness or derangement of the mind "whatever the source or cause," and submitted to the jury the three inquiries required in every criminal trial where the defense of insanity is imposed. The oral instruction given and rulings as to special charges requested by defendant were in conformity with the principles announced...

To continue reading

Request your trial
188 practice notes
  • Allen v. State, CR-92-1463
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 27, 1994
    ...supra; Dunn v. State, 277 Ala. 39 at 44, 166 So.2d 878 (1964); Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala. 356, 361, 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 44, 95 So. 171 Meredith v. State, 370 So.2d 1075, 1078-79 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala.1979). Accord Holladay v. State,......
  • Freeman v. State, 8 Div. 200
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 22, 1988
    ...]; Dunn v. State, 277 Ala. 39 at 44, 166 So.2d 878 (1964); Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala. 356, 361, 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 44, 95 So. 171 (1922).' (Emphasis added.)" Sales v. State, 435 So.2d 242, 245 Furthermore, the following occurred during the direct examin......
  • Smith v. State, 4 Div. 214
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 14, 1968
    ...improper remarks of a solicitor in the trial of a case can be gauged. Each case must be determined on its own merits. Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171; Hawkins v. State, 29 Ala.App. 221, 195 So. 762, cert. denied, 239 Ala. 532, 195 So. We cannot say that Mr. Brantley's remarks her......
  • Adler v. Miller, 6 Div. 479.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1928
    ...211 Ala. 502, 101 So. 106-were arguments making class prejudice. Davis v. Quattlebaum, 210 Ala. 242, 97 So. 701, and Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 43, 95 So. 171, were of objectionable arguments of facts outside the evidence. See, also, Ala. F. & I. Co. v. Williams, 207 Ala. 99, 100, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
188 cases
  • Allen v. State, CR-92-1463
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 27, 1994
    ...supra; Dunn v. State, 277 Ala. 39 at 44, 166 So.2d 878 (1964); Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala. 356, 361, 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 44, 95 So. 171 Meredith v. State, 370 So.2d 1075, 1078-79 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1079 (Ala.1979). Accord Holladay v. State,......
  • Freeman v. State, 8 Div. 200
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 22, 1988
    ...]; Dunn v. State, 277 Ala. 39 at 44, 166 So.2d 878 (1964); Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala. 356, 361, 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 44, 95 So. 171 (1922).' (Emphasis added.)" Sales v. State, 435 So.2d 242, 245 Furthermore, the following occurred during the direct examination......
  • Smith v. State, 4 Div. 214
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 14, 1968
    ...improper remarks of a solicitor in the trial of a case can be gauged. Each case must be determined on its own merits. Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171; Hawkins v. State, 29 Ala.App. 221, 195 So. 762, cert. denied, 239 Ala. 532, 195 So. We cannot say that Mr. Brantley's remarks her......
  • Adler v. Miller, 6 Div. 479.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1928
    ...211 Ala. 502, 101 So. 106-were arguments making class prejudice. Davis v. Quattlebaum, 210 Ala. 242, 97 So. 701, and Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 43, 95 So. 171, were of objectionable arguments of facts outside the evidence. See, also, Ala. F. & I. Co. v. Williams, 207 Ala. 99, 100, 91 S......
  • 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