Hollins v. State

Decision Date14 December 1976
Docket NumberNo. 49393,49393
Citation340 So.2d 438
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesAbraham HOLLINS v. STATE of Mississippi.

Wilkins, Ellington, Latham & James, Samuel H. Wilkins, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by John C. Underwood, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before INZER, ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ.

INZER, Presiding Justice:

Abraham Hollins was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Holmes County, Mississippi, for the murder of Mary Alice Cosby, his girlfriend's mother. He was sentenced to serve a life term in the Mississippi State Penitentiary from which he appeals. We affirm.

The principal facts reflected by the record are that on April 9, 1975, after a heated argument over the telephone with Mary Alice Cosby, appellant drove to her home where he shot and killed Mrs. Cosby with a shotgun. Shortly after the shooting incident, Hollins was apprehended by Yazoo and Holmes County officers. After he was transported to the Holmes County Courthouse, appellant gave a statement to the sheriff confessing to the murder of the deceased.

Several questions are raised on this appeal. Appellant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict for him or to grant a new trial on the ground that the state failed to prove appellant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to rebut appellant's proof that he was temporarily insane at the time of the incident. We find this assignment to be without merit.

The record in this case reveals that prior to trial on the merits, the court sustained a motion made by appellant's counsel that appellant be sent to the Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield for a mental examination. However, before being sent to Whitfield, appellant filed a motion asking that the order be set aside and that the court direct appellant to be examined by Dr. David E. Cox, a psychologist. This motion was sustained and the sheriff was directed to transport appellant to Jackson to the office Dr. Cox for examination. This was done. Dr. Cox gave appellant certain tests and reached the conclusion from his examination that appellant was temporarily insane at the time he shot Mrs. Cosby. Dr. Cox testified that in his opinion appellant was suffering from 'dissociative personality disturbance, a dissociative reaction which is a form of conversion hysteria . . . in other words, he is not competent sometimes to manage his own behavior.' It was his opinion based on the facts in evidence and his examination that at the time of the incident the defendant was in a state of 'fugue', which is like sleepwalking, and he did not have conscious control of his actions. He said he did not think the defendant knew the nature and quality of his act and could not distinguish right from wrong when he shot Mrs. Cosby.

The court, over the objection of the defendant, allowed Dr. Charlton S. Stanley, a staff psychologist at Mississippi State Hospital, to remain in the courtroom during the trial and hear the witnesses testify and observe the defendant during the course of the trial. Dr. Stanley testified that dissociative reaction described by Dr. Cox is a neurosis rather than a psychosis. Dr. Stanley also said that in his opinion a person suffering from the two diagnoses rendered by Dr. Cox would know the difference between right and wrong. On cross examination Dr. Stanley admitted that Dr. Cox would be in a better position to give an opinion than he would because he had never examined the defendant.

There was other conflicting evidence relative to the actions and appearance of appellant on the day in question. Appellant did not testify in his own behalf.

The general rule as stated in Smith v. State, 245 So.2d 583 (Miss.1971), is that a jury may disregard the conclusion of the defendant's expert witness and accept the testimony of the state's witnesses, both lay the expert, that a defendant is sane. The record clearly reveals that there was sufficient evidence under the given facts to submit the issue of appellant's sanity to the jury and the verdict of the jury is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Blackwell v. State, 257 So.2d 855 (Miss.1972), Section 99-13-7, Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated.

Appellant urges that the trial court should have excluded the statement given by him for the reason that he was still temporarily insane at the time he made the statement and as a result he could not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive his rights as required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Cited in support of this contention is Harvey v. State, 207 So.2d 108 (Miss.1968), in which we stated the general rule that the confession of an insane person cannot be admitted in evidence because he cannot waive his constitutional rights against self incrimination. However, in Harvey we further sated:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Willie v. State, 89-DP-1285
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 24 Luglio 1991
    ...was within reason. Despite the limitation, if Willie had sufficient time to give his closing argument, we will not reverse. Cf. Hollins, 340 So.2d at 441. By offering to read to the trial court portions of his closing argument which he never had time to say, Willie clearly demonstrated that......
  • Walker v. State, 92-DP-00568-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 12 Ottobre 1995
    ...limitation, if Willie had sufficient time to give his closing argument, we will not reverse." 585 So.2d at 676. Cf. Hollins v. State, 340 So.2d 438, 441 (Miss.1976). Willie requested 25 minutes to argue at the sentencing phase, and was granted only 15. Willie, 585 So.2d at 675. The Court de......
  • Edwards v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 16 Marzo 1983
    ...Such opinions must be based on personal knowledge, and the jury is not bound to accept the conclusions of any expert. Hollins v. State, 340 So.2d 438 (Miss.1976); Smith v. State, 245 So.2d 583 Beginning chronologically, Edwards was first diagnosed by Dr. James W. Doolos, a psychiatrist, and......
  • Douglas v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Aprile 1988
    ...a witness to testify on rebuttal even though he has been in the courtroom after The Rule has been invoked. See, e.g., Hollins v. State, 340 So.2d 438, 441 (Miss.1976); Butler v. State, 320 So.2d 786, 788 (Miss.1975). As to law enforcement personnel specifically, this Court has also held tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT