Joseph Gruber v. The State.

• Citation: 3 W.Va. 699
• Parties: Joseph Gruber v. The State.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1869
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

3 W.Va. 699

Joseph Gruber

v.The State.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

January Term, 1869.

1. It is error to exclude from the jury evidence of the prisoner's insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, on the plea of not guilty.

2. If there is reasonable ground to doubt the sanity of the accused at the time of the trial, and, after a jury is impannelled, it is the duty of the court to suspend the trial and to impannel another jury to inquire into the fact of such sanity.

3. If such jury find the accused to be insane at the time of the trial, it shall then inquire as to his sanity at the time of committing the offense.

4. If such jury find the accused to be insane at the time the offense was committed, that fact is a good defense in bar of further prosecution.

5. If such jury find the accused sane at the time of the trial, then the trial

in chief shall proceed.

6. If it is not suggested that the accused is insane at the time of the trial, and

the jury impannelled for the trial of the cause be discharged, the prisoner is thereby wronged by being prevented from making his proper defense before the jury, and is entitled upon his motion to be discharged from further prosecution of the indictment.

Joseph Gruber was indicted in the circuit court of Ohio county, on the 6th day of October, 1868, for grand larceny, and on the 8th day of the same month was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. A jury was elected, tried and sworn to well and truly try, and true deliverance make between the State and the prisoner.

After the jury was sworn, it appearing to the court that there was question as to the sanity of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense, the court ordered that one of the jurors be withdrawn and the remainder from rendering a verdict be discharged.

A jury was thereupon impannelled to enquire whether or not the prisoner was, on the 17th of August, 1868, the time of the commission of the alleged offense, of sound mind, which, jury found that the prisoner was, at the time aforesaid, of sound mind. The cause was continued until the next term of said court, wheu the prisoner by his counsel moved to be discharged from further prosecution of the indictment; which motion the court overruled. The accused then offered to file a special plea setting up the fact of the discharge of the jury, under the facts above stated, in bar of further prosecution of the indictment against him. This plea the court refused to allow him to file, and he thereupon excepted to the opinion of the court. Another jury was impannelled, and before it, and during the trial, the accused offered a witness who was a physician in good standing, to prove that the prisoner, at the time the alleged offense was committed, was insane. This evidence the court refused to allow to go before the jury, and the accused again excepted. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and fixed his term of confinement in the penitentiary at four years, and on this verdict the court pronounced sentence.

The defendant obtained a writ of error and supersedeas to this court

M. J. Mussell for the plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, Melvin, for the State, who declined to argue the case.

Maxwell, J. The petitioner, Joseph Gruber, was indicted in the circuit court of Ohio county, on the 6th day of Octo-her, 1868, for grand larceny, and on the 8th day of the same month was arraigned on the said indictment, to which ho pleaded not guilty. A jury was then regularly elected, tried and sworn to well and truly try and true deliverance make between the State and the prisoner.

It appears from the record, that after the jury was sworn, it appearing to the court that there was question as to the sanity of the party at the time of the commission of the offence alleged in the indictment, by order of the court one of the jurors was withdrawn, and the remainder of the jury from reudering a verdict were discharged.

A jury was thereupon immediately impannelled to inquire whether the said Gruber, the prisoner at the bar, was of sound mind or not on the 17th day of August, 1868; which jury found that the prisoner was sane on the said 17th day of August, 1868, the day on which it is alleged in the indictment the larceny was committed. The cause was then continued until the next term of said court, at which term the defendant, Gruber, by his counsel, moved to be discharged from further prosecution on the indictment aforesaid; but the court overruled the said motion, and refused to discharge the accused. The defendant then offered to file a special plea, setting up the fact of the discharge of the jury under the facts above stated, in bar of the further prosecution of the indictment against him; but the court refused to allow the plea to be...