Bingham v. State

• Decision Date: 22 May 1946
• Docket Number: A-10747.
• Citation: 169 P.2d 311,82 Okla.Crim. 305
• Parties: BINGHAM v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

169 P.2d 311

82 Okla.Crim. 305

BINGHAM v. STATE.

No. A-10747.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

May 22, 1946

Alfred Clarence Bingham was convicted for murder and was given the death sentence, and he filed an original action against the State of Oklahoma, seeking a review of the findings of a jury of Pittsburg County holding him sane or in the alternative praying that a sanity hearing be had before the Criminal Court of Appeals.

Petition dismissed.

DOYLE J., dissenting.

Where prisoner incarcerated in state penitentiary awaiting execution, whose conviction had been affirmed upon appeal had trial before jury of county in which penitentiary was located upon question of his present sanity and verdict was rendered finding that prisoner was sane, the sole recourse of prisoner under common law and the statutes was an appeal to the Governor who could exercise his powers of clemency at his discretion in the manner provided by law. 20 Okl.St.Ann. § 41; 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 1005.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under common law an inquisition to determine sanity of a person under sentence of death, but who it was alleged had become insane since incarceration in penitentiary was under control of trial court. There was no provision for jury trial or for appeal from court's finding.

2. By statute in Oklahoma, common-law rule is modified to provide that district or superior court of county where prisoner is confined may make inquisition into sanity of prisoner where warden of institution has reason to believe that he has become insane since his incarceration. A mandatory trial by jury of such question is provided. 22 O.S.1941 § 1005.

3. The investigation of sanity of prisoner incarcerated under sentence of death is based upon public will and sense of propriety rather than on any right of prisoner. Any investigation of mental condition of prisoner is for sole purpose of determining whether it would be consistent with public decency and propriety to take away life of person not sane enough to realize what was being done.

4. The test of the question as to whether one about to be executed is sane or insane is whether or not such person, at the time of the examination, from the defects of his faculties, has sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, what he was tried for, the purpose of his punishment, the impending fate which awaits him, and a sufficient understanding to know any fact which might exist which would make his punishment unjust or unlawful, and the intelligence requisite to convey such information to his attorneys or the court. If he has, then he is sane; otherwise he is insane, and should not be executed.

5. The common law will be used as a guide in procedural matters of a criminal nature where there is no provision in code. 22 O.S.1941 § 9.

6. The verdict of jury upon the collateral issue of prisoner's sanity after incarceration in penitentiary is not a final judgment from which an appeal or writ of error will lie.

7. Under constitution and statutes creating the Criminal Court of Appeals and giving it exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases it was further provided: 'Said court and judges thereof shall have the power to issue writs of habeas corpus; and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, issue such writs as may be necessary to exercise its jurisdiction; and may prescribe and promulgate such rules for the government of said court as it may deem necessary.' 20 O.S.1941 § 41.

8. Since Criminal Court of Appeals is without appellate jurisdiction, it has no legal authority to issue a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing action of jury in finding prisoner was sane in collateral proceeding before district court.

9. To permit convicted person to arrest the execution of a sentence by demanding as a legal right an inquisition into his mental condition would be tantamount to granting the privilege of thwarting the administration of justice indefinitely, as prisoner could make claim after claim of insanity, to be followed by trial upon trial and review upon review.

10. There is no provision under statutes of Oklahoma nor of common law to authorize Criminal Court of Appeals to conduct an inquisition into sanity of prisoner incarcerated in penitentiary awaiting execution.

11. Where prisoner incarcerated in state penitentiary awaiting execution, whose conviction has been affirmed upon appeal, has trial before jury of county where penitentiary is located upon question of his present sanity and verdict is rendered finding prisoner is sane, the sole recourse of the condemned man under the common law and statutes of Oklahoma lies in an appeal to the Governor who may exercise his powers of clemency at his discretion in the manner provided by law.

Paul W. Gotcher and Geo. L. Hill, both of McAlester, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES Presiding Judge.

This proceeding was instituted by the filing of a petition styled 'Petition to Stay Execution' wherein the petitioner, Alfred Clarence Bingham, through his attorneys sought a stay of execution of the, death sentence heretofore imposed on the petitioner by the District Court of Tulsa County and affirmed by this court on appeal. Bingham v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 165 P.2d 646.

The petition recites that the petitioner has become insane since his incarceration in the state penitentiary, that the warden of the state penitentiary has heretofore suggested his insanity to the county attorney of Pittsburg County, and that pursuant to the statutes of Oklahoma a petition was filed with the District Court of Pittsburg County asking the district court to impanel a jury to determine the question of his present sanity. The petition further alleges that a jury was impaneled in the District Court of Pittsburg County and rendered their verdict finding the petitioner was sane.

The petition herein asks this court to allow an appeal from the verdict of the jury of Pittsburg County finding the defendant sane, or in the alternative if we should find there was no legal authority for such an appeal that this court stay the execution and hold a sanity hearing before the court to determine the question as to whether the defendant's mental condition was such that the appellate court upon humanitarian grounds would stay the execution of the death penalty until the prisoner had been restored to his reason.

The petition was presented to the court just a few hours before the date set for the execution. This is the first time such procedure has been followed in Oklahoma, and because the questions raised were of such importance and the time pending before the execution of the petitioner was so short, this court asked the Governor to grant a twenty-day stay of execution to give time for deliberation upon the legal questions presented by the petition and to hold an inquisition into his sanity if this court should assume jurisdiction of such inquiry.

Under the common law, an inquisition to determine the mental condition of a person convicted of crime and under sentence of death, but who, it was alleged, had become insane since rendition of judgment was under the control of the trial court and that court alone decided when an inquisition was warranted. There was no provision for a jury trial and no appeal would lie from the finding of the court. 4 Blackstone's Commentaries 395; Nobles v. State of Georgia, 168 U.S. 398, 18 S.Ct. 87, 42 L.Ed. 515; People v. Preston, 345 Ill. 11, 177 N.E. 761; Ex parte Chesser, 93 Fla. 291, 111 So. 720; People v. Eldred, 103 Colo. 334, 86 P.2d 248.

This common-law rule stemmed from the authority given in early English history to the sheriff or officer having the prisoner in custody under sentence of death to make an inquisition into his sanity where he had reason to believe that the prisoner had become insane since he had been placed in confinement. The sheriff had authority to call for such assistance as he might see fit to advise with him in the case. No appeal was contemplated and the inquiry was for the purpose of determining the one proposition as to whether the prisoner had become totally bereft of his senses so that he in no way understood why he was imprisoned or the punishment which was about to be meted out to him.

By statute in many states it is provided for an inquisition into the sanity of a person where the warden of the institution where the prisoner is confined has reason to believe that he has become insane since his incarceration. Oklahoma has such a statute,...