Baughn v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 1897 |
| Citation | 28 S.E. 68,100 Ga. 554 |
| Parties | BAUGHN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. There is no law of force in this state which makes it incumbent upon a judge of the superior court, at the time when judgment is to be entered, or after it has been entered to allow or order a judicial investigation concerning the mental condition of one against whom a lawful verdict of guilty has been rendered in a capital case, and who has been rendered in a capital case, and who has thereby become subject to the penalty of death; nor in either instance is a refusal by such judge to enter upon an investigation of this kind, with or without the aid of a jury, a denial to the prisoner of "due process of law."
2. The provisions of the Code relating to inquisitions in such matters are sufficiently comprehensive to cover all cases where the alleged insanity begins at any time after the rendition of the verdict of guilty.
Error from superior court, Twiggs county; C. C. Smith, Judge.
Application by W. W. Baughn, the next friend of Elizabeth Nobles, who was convicted of murder, for a trial of the question of her insanity. From an order refusing the petition, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Marion Harris and Glenn & Rountree, for plaintiff in error.
Tom Eason, Sol. Gen., and J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
At a special term of the superior court of Twiggs county in July 1895, Elizabeth Nobles was tried for the offense of murder and, upon conviction, was sentenced to death. The sentence "having been legally suspended and superseded by the order of the court, the case came on to be heard before the court" on June 23, 1896, "for the purpose of passing sentence of death in accordance with the verdict of guilty rendered." At this term, Baughn, the plaintiff in error, as the next friend of the condemned woman, appeared, and, in her behalf, objected to the sentence of death being passed, on the ground that she was then insane, and in his application prayed "the court for a trial by jury of the said question of insanity; that the court cause jurors to be regularly summoned and impaneled to try said issue, and that such other proceedings be had in that regard as are usually incident to trials in said court; that petitioner have the right to the court's process to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to such other process as may be right and necessary; and that said sentence be postponed and superseded until the final adjudication of the question." The court declined to entertain the application, and refused "each and every prayer" thereof, and fixed the time for the execution of the sentence on August 7, 1896. Thereupon Baughn, in the same capacity as above stated, by petition, alleged that Elizabeth Nobles was then insane, and that it was contrary to the policy of the law, and illegal, that the sentence of death should be executed, and prayed "that the court cause jurors to be regularly summoned and impaneled to try said issue, and that such other proceedings be had in that regard as are usually incident to trials in said court, and that petitioners have the right to the court's process to compel the attendance of witnesses, and such other process as may be right and necessary, and that said sentence of death be suspended and superseded until the final adjudication of the question." The court refused to entertain the petition, and denied "each and every prayer" of the same. The error complained of is the refusal of the judge to entertain these petitions and grant the prayers therein contained, it being claimed that the question of the insanity of the convicted woman should be inquired of by a jury in the superior court, according to the forms of procedure usually incident to trials in that court, that the refusal of the judge to submit this question to a jury is a denial to the prisoner of due process of law, and that there is no proceeding authorized by any statute law of Georgia which amounts to due process of law of Georgia which amounts to due process of law in such cases; the procedure provided in Pen. Code, § 1027, not being judicial in its nature.
"A lunatic or person insane, without lucid intervals, shall not be found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor with which he may be charged: provided, the act so charged as criminal was committed in the condition of such lunacy or insanity; but if a lunatic has lucid intervals of understanding, he shall answer for what he does in those intervals as if he had no deficiency." Pen. Code, § 35. The section quoted clearly shows that under the law of this state no person can be legally convicted of a crime committed while in a moment of irresponsibility growing out of an unsound mind. If the person charged with the crime desires to avail himself of the provisions of this law, and urge his insanity as a defense to a crime for which he stands indicted, no special plea of any character is necessary, as this defense will be allowed under the plea of not guilty. Danforth v. State, 75 Ga 614. "Whenever the plea of insanity is filed, it shall be the duty of the court to cause the issue on that plea to be first tried by a special jury, and if found to be true, the court shall order the defendant to be delivered to the superintendent of the asylum, there to remain until discharged in the manner prescribed by law." Pen. Code, § 951. This section secures to a person charged with a crime the right to have the question of his mental condition at the time of the trial inquired into before being required to plead to the indictment. Long v. State, 38 Ga. 491. "If, after any convict shall have been sentenced to the punishment of death, he shall become insane, the sheriff of the county with the concurrence and assistance of the ordinary thereof, shall summon a jury of twelve men to inquire into such insanity. The following oath shall be administered to the jury, to-wit: Pen. Code, § 1047. The sections above quoted embrace all of the law of force in this state which relates to the subject of an inquiry into the mental condition of a person charged with or convicted of a criminal offense. If insane at the time the act is committed, he shall not be convicted. The section first above quoted gives him the right to have the question of his mental condition at this time inquired of strictly in accord with procedure usual in courts of justice in this state. Whether he be sane or insane at the time of the commission of the act, the section second above quoted provides for him a trial according to the usual rules of procedure of force in this state on the question of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial