Kelley v. State
| Decision Date | 11 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | 32 |
| Citation | 246 S.W. 4,156 Ark. 188 |
| Parties | KELLEY v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Southern District; James Cochran Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed.
John P. Roberts and Evans & Evans, for appellant.
J S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court refusing to issue a writ of error coram nobis for the purpose of inquiring into the question of appellant's sanity at the time of his trial and conviction of a felony during a former term of the court.
It has been decided by this court that the method of reviewing an order of the circuit judge in vacation refusing to issue such a writ is by certiorari, but since the record is now before us and could be treated as being here on certiorari, we pretermit decision of the question whether the record should have been brought up by writ of certiorari or on appeal, where the order refusing the writ was made by the circuit court, and not by the judge in vacation.
Appellant was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree, and upon the first trial was convicted of murder in the second degree, but on appeal the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. 146 Ark. 509. On the trial anew appellant was again convicted of murder in the second degree, and on appeal the judgment of conviction was affirmed. Kelley v. State, 154 Ark. 246, 242 S.W. 572.
It was conceded, at each of the trials, that appellant shot and killed the person named in the indictment, but the defense was based on the grounds that appellant acted in necessary self- defense, and also that he was insane at the time the killing occurred. Both of these issues were submitted to the jury, and the last judgment of conviction was affirmed on the ground that the issues were properly submitted.
After the expiration of the term, appellant, acting through his next friend, filed and presented to the court, at the next term, a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, to the end that a jury might be impaneled to try the question of his insanity at the time of the trial. The petition was accompanied by affidavits in support of the allegation that appellant was insane at the time of his last trial. The trial court heard these affidavits, and also heard oral testimony in the proceeding to determine whether or not the writ should be granted.
There was evidence adduced on appellant's behalf tending to show that he was insane, both at the time the killing occurred and at the time of the trial. It appeared also, from the testimony adduced, that during the trial of the cause appellant's counsel contended on his behalf that he was insane at the time of the trial and did not comprehend the importance of the proceedings. This statement, it appears, was made by appellant's counsel in his opening statement to the jury, which, of course, was in the presence of the court.
It is shown in the evidence in this case that, in the trial of appellant, there was an attempt to show hereditary insanity on the part of appellant, and that it took the form of delusional insanity, or paranoia, which had reached what is termed the "persecutory stage."
In many decisions of this court the office of a writ of error coram nobis has been outlined and discussed, and among other things, it has been held that the remedy under this writ is available to set aside a judgment of conviction after expiration of the term of court, if the defendant was insane at the time of the trial and that fact was not made known or suggested at the trial. Adler v. State, 35 Ark. 517; Howard v. State, 58 Ark. 229, 24 S.W. 8; Ince v. State, 77 Ark. 418, 88 S.W. 818; Johnson v. State, 97 Ark. 131, 133 S.W. 596; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carruthers v. Reed
...191 Ark. 860, 88 S.W.2d 74; State v. Hudspeth, 191 Ark. 963, 88 S.W.2d 858; Sease v. State, 157 Ark. 217, 247 S.W. 1036; Kelley v. State, 156 Ark. 188, 246 S.W. 4. Petitioners waived their right to review the judgment of the state court in the regular manner, and habeas corpus in the circum......
-
Blodgett v. State
...Graves v. Graves, 255 Mo. 468, 164 S.W. 469, State v. Richardson, supra, Sease v. State, 157 Ark. 217, 247 S.W. 1036, Kelley v. State, 156 Ark. 188, 246 S.W. 4, People v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.2d 136, 47 P.2d 724, People v. Walton, 10 Cal.App.2d 413, 51 P.2d 1117. If the record discloses th......
-
Mitchell v. State
...For subsequent cases see Hodges v. State, 111 Ark. 22, 163 S.W. 506; Cunningham v. State, 149 Ark. 336, 232 S.W. 425; Kelley v. State, 156 Ark. 188, 246 S.W. 4; Sease v. State, 157 Ark. 217, 247 S.W. 1036; and Hardwick v. State, 220 Ark. 464, 248 S.W.2d 377; Black v. State, 216 Ark. 805, 22......
-
Turner v. State
...after verdict, to intelligently give reason why judgment should not be pronounced.' Other cases involving this Statute are Kelley v. State, 156 Ark. 188, 246 S.W. 4, and, Wilhite v. State, 158 Ark. 290, 250 S.W. To force a defendant to trial while he is presently insane would violate the fu......