Holland v. State

• Decision Date: 20 November 1907
• Citation: 105 S.W. 812
• Parties: HOLLAND v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

105 S.W. 812

HOLLAND v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 20, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Bell County; John M. Furman, Judge.

Jim Holland, alias J. D. Duke, was convicted of swindling, and appeals. Remanded, to be tried on issue of insanity.

F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

On a plea of guilty, appellant's punishment was assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary on a charge of swindling. After the verdict and judgment were entered up, but before the adjournment of the term, an affidavit in proper and legal form was filed, sworn to by a credible witness, as far as this record shows, and presented by the counsel employed by the relatives of appellant to the district judge, in which affidavit the fact is suggested that affiant was crazy at the time of filing same. Accompanying the affidavit is a certified copy of the decree of the county court of Runnels county, adjudging appellant insane on the 29th day of January, 1907, and also the supporting affidavits of R. E. and Thomas A. Duke, relatives of appellant. The district attorney filed a motion asking the court to overrule the request of appellant for a trial on the issue of insanity, first, because the defendant has been sentenced on a valid judgment of this court, and because the court now has no jurisdiction of this cause; second, because the defendant is not probably insane, as is evidenced by certificate of Dr. B. M. Worsham, which said certificate is hereto attached. Thereupon the court sustained the motion of the district attorney, and refused to try the issue of defendant's insanity after conviction, and dismissed the said motion and affidavit, and the defendant by his attorneys in open court excepted to said ruling and gave notice of appeal to this court.

All these matters are presented in a bill of exceptions incorporated in the record before us. Then the question for our consideration is this: Where appellant pleads guilty to a felony, and subsequent to the judgment entered thereon an affidavit is filed stating that appellant is crazy, does this affidavit force the trial court to organize a jury and try the question of insanity of appellant? We answer this question in the affirmative. In the case of Guagando v. State, 41 Tex. 626, the Supreme Court of this state held that, "when an affidavit is made by a respectable person that a defendant charged with crime has become insane, a jury should be impaneled to try the issue of insanity before proceeding with the cause; and this, though the party making the affidavit is unknown to those in attendance on court." It was further held in said opinion that "the question to be determined on a plea of insanity is, is the accused mentally competent to make a rational defense? and the...