Brown v. State, 20795

• Decision Date: 16 March 1960
• Docket Number: No. 20795,20795
• Citation: 113 S.E.2d 618,215 Ga. 784
• Parties: George BROWN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 618

113 S.E.2d 618

215 Ga. 784

George BROWN v. STATE.

No. 20795.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 16, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. On the trial of the issue made by the special plea of insanity at the time of the trial, the court erred in submitting in its charge to the jury the 'right and wrong' test as the proper basis for determining the competency of the defendant to stand trial on the indictment for murder. The proper question to be submitted to the jury is whether the defendant is mentally competent at the time of the trial of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him, and rightly comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and is capable of rendering his attorneys such assistance as a proper defense to the indictment preferred against him demands.

2. The court erred in denying the defendant's motions for new trial on the special plea of insanity and on the conviction of murder.

George C. Kennedy, H. Briscoe Black, G. C. Thompson, Claude A. Bray, Jr., Manchester, John K. Weeks, Warm Springs, Ben R. Freeman, Greenville, for plaintiff in error.

Wright Lipford, Sol. Gen., Newnan, W. S. Allen, Greenville, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

ALMAND, Justice.

The defendant was indicted for murder. Upon the call of the case, he filed a special plea of insanity. A special jury was impaneled to try the plea, and a verdict was returned finding against the plea. The defendant was then put on trial for murder, and was convicted without a recommendation of mercy. He filed a motion for new trial upon his special plea and upon his conviction of murder. These motions were denied, and he excepts to these judgments.

1. The assignment of error on the overruling of the amended motion for new trial on the special plea of insanity presents but one question: That is, whether the trial judge erred in submitting in his charge to the jury the 'right and wrong' test as the sole and proper criterion for determining the issue of the present insanity of the defendant at the time of the trial. It is unquestioned that the general test of criminal responsibility in this State when insanity is interposed as a defense to the crime itself under the provisions of Code § 26-303, is, as substantially charged by the trial judge in the instant case, that of whether one has reason sufficient to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to the particular act about to be committed. Rozier v. State, 185 Ga. 317, 320, 195 S.E. 272, and cases therein cited. We have been unable, however, to find any decision of this court or the Court of Appeals which establishes any criteria for determining that condition of insanity which will preclude trial under the provisions of Code § 27-1504.

In Freeman v. People, 4 Denio, N.Y., 9, 47 Am.Dec. 246, the court in considering the test of insanity to be applied under a statute similar to that of Code § 27-1504 held that the trial judge erred in submitting to the jury the 'right and wrong' test on the question of present insanity at the time of the trial. Justice Beardsley in delivering the opinion of the court said: 'The statute declares that 'no insane person can be tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished for any crime or offense, while he continues in that state,' 2 R.S. 697, sec. 2. This although new as a legislative enactment in this state (3 Id. 832) was not introductory of a new rule. * * * The common law, equally with this statute, forbids the trial of any person in a state of insanity. This is clearly shown by authorities which have been referred to, and which also show the reason for the rule, to wit, the incapacity of one who is insane to make a rational defense. The statute is in affirmance of this common law principle, and the reason on which the rule rests furnishes a key to what must have been the intention of the legislature. If, therefore, a person arraigned for a crime, is capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him; if he rightly comprehends his own position in reference to such proceedings, and can conduct his defense in a rational manner, he is, for the purpose of being tried, to be deemed sane, although on some other subjects his mind may be deranged or unsound.' The court then held that the proper question to submit to the jury in such cases is, whether the prisoner is so far sane as to be competent to make his defense, if one he has.

In People v. West, 25 Cal.App. 369, 143 P. 793, 795, it was stated: 'It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the...