Cogburn v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1955 |
| Citation | 198 Tenn. 431,281 S.W.2d 38,2 McCanless 431 |
| Parties | James COGBURN and Roy Cogburn v. STATE of Tennessee. 2 McCanless 431, 198 Tenn. 431, 281 S.W.2d 38 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
J. B. Avery, Jr., Alamo, for plaintiffs in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiffs in error have appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court based upon the verdict of a jury finding them presently insane. They in support of this appeal filed an able brief with many assignments of error to the proceeding there. They, too, through able counsel have made an oral argument. In view of the disposition that we think must be made of this case it will not be necessary for us to consider all of these assignments of error.
These parties were indicted upon a charge of homicide and prior to their arraignment the District Attorney General filed a petition averring that he had been advised by certain doctors, who had attended these plaintiffs in error during their confinement in jail, that a psychiatric examination of them should be made. The petition of the District Attorney General was granted by the court and the plaintiffs in error committed to the Hospital for the Criminal Insane for observation and treatment. They were committed and a report made on November 26, 1954, to the effect that both of them were insane and not competent to stand trial upon the criminal charge.
When the indictment against these parties was called for trial, the District Attorney General suggested the present insanity of each of them. To this suggestion of present insanity, the plaintiffs in error through their counsel filed a plea in abatement setting forth in substance that the prosecution could not suggest the present insanity of persons charged with a crime but that the same was a personal privilege to the person so charged and that the plaintiffs in error were not pleading present insanity. This plea in abatement was overruled and the plaintiffs in error placed on trial upon the plea of present insanity and a jury after hearing the evidence of the doctors offered on behalf of the State that they were presently insane and some several witnesses offered on their behalf found that they were presently insane and not mentally capable of going to trial. It is from this verdict that the present appeal is sought.
Subsection (5) of Code Section 4459.1, Williams Annotated Code, provides:
'When any person is under indictment charged with the commission of an offense and is suspected of being insane, the judges having criminal jurisdiction thereof shall have authority, upon petition duly filed by the district attorney general, or the attorney for the defendant, and after hearing, to commit said person to the said Thomas F. Gailor Psychiatric Hospital, or any similar institution in his district having facilities therefor, for observation, treatment, and hospital care for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days, and the cost of maintaining said prisoner in said institution shall be added to the costs of court in said cause.'
Thus we have a clear statutory authorization for the District Attorney's action herein and the trial judge's action in submitting these parties for examination. For reasons hereinafter stated we think that these parties would have had a like right and duty under the common law in the absence of a statute. Insofar as we can determine there is no statute in this State applicable to a situation as here presented other than that above quoted which is a part of the chapter and general Act providing for the commission of insane persons to the hospital. But insofar as we can determine there is nothing else in this Act or otherwise applicable to such parties in criminal prosecutions.
We are definitely of the opinion, in the absence of an applicable statute, that the investigation of the present insanity or the mental disorder of one accused of a crime when such is brought to the attention of the trial judge or the District Attorney General that it becomes their duty to make a further investigation into this matter and that such actions are controlled by the common law. Of course so much of the common law as has not been abrogated or repealed by statute is in full force and effect in this State. Simpson v. Drake, 150 Tenn. 84, 262 S.W. 41.
In a comparatively recent case on the question (1948) the Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251, 49 S.E.2d 458, 460, made this very appropriate statement:
We think that this is the correct rule to apply in Tennessee and so adopt the quoted statement as the rule applicable in this State.
In our investigation of the matter and in reading the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thursby v. State
... ... 148, 368 P.2d 942, 947, (1962) ... The trial court in which the criminal case is pending has inherent jurisdiction to determine the issue of defendant's competence to stand trial. Syphers v. Gladden, supra; State v. Davis, 6 Wash.2d 696, 108 P.2d 641, 650 (1940); Cogburn v. State, 198 Tenn. 431, 281 S.W.2d 38 (1955). See also, Steward v. State, 124 Wis. 623, 102 N.W. 1079 (1905), where the common law procedure is discussed ... The method to be used by the trial court in determining the competence of the accused to stand trial, whether with or ... ...
-
State v. Taylor, No. M2005-01941-CCA-R3-DD (Tenn. Crim. App. 3/7/2008), M2005-01941-CCA-R3-DD.
... ... Drope, 420 U.S. at 181 ("Even when a defendant is competent at the commencement of his trial, a trial court must always be alert to circumstances suggesting a change that would render the accused unable to meet the standards of competence to stand trial."); Cogburn v. State, 281 S.W.2d 38, 39-40 (Tenn. 1955). Although the State urges this Court to only consider facts that were known to the trial court at the time the trial commenced, we conclude this rule only applies to a situation such as that in Berndt where a defendant is challenging his competency ... ...
-
Reid v. State, Case No. CCA No. M2006-01294-CCA-R3-PD (Tenn. 6/26/2006)
... ... The information before the Montgomery County Circuit Court was more than enough to justify further inquiry. See, e.g., Cogburn v. State, 281 S.W.2d 38, 39-30 (Tenn. 1955) (a court must initiate an investigation into competency if it "has facts brought to its attention which raise a doubt of the then sanity of the accused"); State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct ... ...
-
Reid v. State
... ... a competency hearing be conducted. The information before the Montgomery County Circuit Court was more than enough to justify further inquiry. See, e.g., Cogburn v. State, 281 S.W.2d 38, 39-30 (Tenn. 1955) (a court must initiate an investigation into competency if it "has facts brought to its attention which raise a doubt of the then sanity of the accused"); State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989) (citing Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 95 S.Ct ... ...