Lokos v. State
Decision Date | 18 November 1965 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 463. |
Citation | 179 So.2d 714 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Dezso John LOKOS v. STATE of Alabama. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John W. Drinkard, Linden, for appellant.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Leslie Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, Dezso John Lokos was indicted for murder in the first degree by a grand jury of Sumter County on February 11, 1964. He was unable to employ counsel, so prior to arraignment the trial court, under the provisions of § 318, Title 15, Code 1940, appointed an experienced member of the Marengo County Bar to represent him.
Upon arraignment, Lokos pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The court-appointed attorney was present at arraignment. Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114.
There was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and imposition of the death penalty. Judgment and sentence were in accord with the verdict.
The appeal here is under the automatic appeal law applicable to cases where the death sentence is imposed. Act 249, approved June 24, 1943, General Acts 1943, p. 217, carried in the 1955 Cum. Pocket Part to Vol. IV, 1940 Official Code, and in the 1958 Recompiled Code as Title 15, § 382(1) et seq.
The attorney who represented Lokos in the trial court was appointed to represent him on this appeal and he has filed a brief on behalf of Lokos in this court.
On February 14, 1964, the day of arraignment, counsel for appellant filed two motions on his behalf, a motion for a change of venue and a motion for the appointment of specialists to examine appellant concerning his mental condition. Each of these motions was overruled by the court prior to trial of the main case.
When the motion for change of venue came on for hearing on February 20, 1964, the appellant called several witnesses but all of them gave testimony to the effect that in their opinion the appellant could secure a fair and impartial trial in Sumter County, and the State called a number of witnesses who testified to the same effect. Reversible error is not made to appear in the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a change of venue. Campbell v. State, 257 Ala. 322, 58 So.2d 623, and cases cited; Denton v. State, 263 Ala. 311, 82 So.2d 406.
On February 14, 1964, the day on which counsel for the appellant moved the trial court to appoint "three reputable specialist practitioners, to examine `into' the appellant's `mental and nervous condition'", the trial court refused to pass on the motion but set it down for a hearing on February 20, 1964. Counsel for appellant by the aforementioned motion sought to invoke the authority granted the trial court by the provisions of § 425, Title 15, Code 1940, which reads:
On February 20, 1964, the day set for the hearing on the motion to appoint the specialists in mental and nervous diseases, counsel for appellant sought to introduce a letter from the superintendent of a Wisconsin mental hospital which, although not admitted in evidence, is included in the record, having been marked for identification. The letter shows the appellant's background and contains the following statement:
While the letter would possibly not have been admissible on the trial on the merits, we think it could have been considered by the trial judge in arriving at a decision as to whether to invoke the provisions of § 425, Title 15, supra.
However, Lokos testified at the hearing and while he was unable to state the nature of his trouble, that is, the diagnosis made by the doctors of his mental condition, he did give evidence as to his several confinements in the Wisconsin mental institution and as to the nature of the treatment given him, which included electric shock treatment and insulin. The State called a Marengo County jailer and a Marengo County deputy sheriff, both of whom were in contact with the appellant while he was confined in the Marengo County jail. The State also called two State transfer agents, who observed the appellant as he was being transferred from one place of confinement to another. Each of those witnesses stated that in his opinion the defendant was sane. The State also called a Marengo County physician, a general practitioner, who talked with the appellant while he was confined in the Marengo County jail and who observed appellant while he was being questioned by the solicitor. Based on those contacts, he expressed the opinion that appellant was sane.
Following the hearing, the trial court overruled the motion for the court to appoint the specialists in mental and nervous diseases to examine the appellant.
The appellant's court-appointed attorney insists in this court that in overruling the motion the trial court erred to a reversal.
However we may have individually acted at nisi prius in view of the fact that the appellant had previously been confined in a mental institution and is a nonresident, who was not only without funds but without family or friends in this state to assist him in securing witnesses in support of his plea of insanity, we cannot under our previous decisions hold that the trial court's action in overruling the motion for the appointment of three experts in the field of mental disorders works a reversal of the judgment below. In Howard v. State, Ala., 178 So.2d 520, decided on June 30, 1965, we said:
(Emphasis supplied)
See Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 122 So.2d 360.
In brief of counsel for appellant appears the following statement:
The record does show that the defendant was not permitted to have a razor while he was confined in the Marengo County jail awaiting trial. But there is nothing in the record to support the statement that he was unshaven at the time of the trial or to support any of the other assertions made in that part of the brief of appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seibold v. State
...settled that the decisions of federal courts other than the Supreme Court are not binding on a state court of last resort. Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So.2d 714. In direct examination of Dr. Herlihy, counsel for the defendant asked: 'Doctor, in your opinion, based upon the events rela......
-
Deblase v. State
...statements denied him his constitutional right to confrontation.DeBlase's contention is contrary to Alabama law. In Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So.2d 714 (1965), judgment vacated on other grounds by Lokos v. Alabama, 408 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 2854, 33 L.Ed.2d 749 (1972), the defendant's ......
-
Dannelly v. State
...280 Ala. 283, 193 So.2d 505; Wright v. State, 279 Ala. 543, 188 So.2d 272; Tiner v. State, 279 Ala. 126, 182 So.2d 859; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So.2d 714; Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453, 179 So.2d 35; and Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840 In Davis v. State, 44 Ala.App. ......
-
Ward v. State
...neither by the narrow M'Naghten 3 formula nor by the latitudinarian Durham 4 rule of the District of Columbia. In Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So.2d 714 (1965), we find the court, per Lawson, J., reaffirming the 1887 formulation of Mr. Justice Somerville in Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 57......