Mitts v. State

• Decision Date: 26 June 1946
• Docket Number: A-10690.
• Citation: Mitts v. State, 170 P.2d 563, 82 Okla.Crim. 367 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946)
• Parties: MITTS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

170 P.2d 563

82 Okla.Crim. 367

MITTS v. STATE.

No. A-10690.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

June 26, 1946

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; S. J. Clendinning, Judge.

Jesse Mitts was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and he appeals.

Remanded with directions.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a defendant is convicted of murder, and prior to the entering of judgment and sentence, a doubt arises as to the sanity of defendant, it is the duty of the court to order a jury empaneled from the jurors summoned and returned for the term, or who may be summoned by direction of the court, and present to them the issue of defendant's present sanity.

2. Tit 22 O.S.1941 §§ 1166 and 1167 provide:

1166. 'If the jury find the defendant sane, the trial of the indictment must proceed, or judgment may be pronounced as the case may be.

1167. 'If the jury find the defendant is insane, the trial or judgment must be suspended until he becomes sane, and the court, if it deem his discharge dangerous to the public peace or safety, may order that he be, in the meantime, committed to the care of the sheriff until he become sane.'

3. The issue as to the sanity of defendant is a question of fact for the jury, and is not a question of law for the court.

4. If after judgment and sentence is rendered and defendant is delivered to warden for execution there is good reason to believe that defendant has become insane, it is the duty of the warden to call such fact to the attention of the county attorney of the county in which the prison is situated whose duty it becomes to file a petition in the district or superior court, and it is the duty of the court to impanel a jury from the regular jury list to inquire into the present sanity of the defendant. Tit. 22 O.S.1941 § 1005.

5. If defendant is found to be insane, the court must order that he be taken to one of the state hospitals for the insane, and there kept until his reason is restored. Tit. 22 O.S.1941 § 1007.

6. Since the confinement of defendant in the State Penitentiary pending execution, proceedings have been had under the statute and defendant found to be insane, and he is now confined in the Eastern Oklahoma Hospital at Vinita Oklahoma.

7. From the above statement, case remanded to district court of Tulsa County, and proper authorities ordered to deliver defendant to the sheriff of Tulsa County when he recovers his sanity, to be held by said sheriff subject to the order of the district court of Tulsa County.

Frank Hickman, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dixie Gilmer, Co. Atty., of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT Judge.

The defendant, Jesse Mitts, was charged in the district court of Tulsa County with the crime of murder; was tried, convicted, and given the death penalty. From this judgment and sentence he has appealed.

A short statement of the history of this case is necessary before a consideration of the question raised by the appeal.

The defendant was charged with having murdered Ray Martin in Tulsa County, on December 24, 1944. He was tried for this offense on March 6, 1945, and was convicted by a jury and given the death penalty.

The evidence revealed that defendant killed the deceased with a revolver he had purchased for that purpose a few days prior thereto. He went to the home of Martin, and waited at a window for him to undress, then shot through the window, and Martin died as a result of the wound received.

Defendant did not enter a plea of insanity at his trial. After his conviction, and prior to the entering of judgment and sentence, a motion for new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment were filed, and it was stated therein that the defendant was insane. These motions were set for hearing on March 23, 1945, and on that date the motion for a new trial was overruled; and the question of defendant's sanity was set for hearing before a jury on April 3, 1945, in compliance with 22 O.S.1941 § 1162, which is as follows:

'When an indictment or information is called for trial, or upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment, if a doubt arise as to the sanity of the defendant, the court must order a jury to be impaneled from the jurors summoned and returned for the term, or who may be summoned by direction of the court, to inquire into the fact.'

The trial judge who had presided at the trial of defendant was ready to proceed with the trial before the jury on the sanity question, when the judge who had been elected to the office of district judge in Tulsa County, and who had returned to Tulsa after his discharge from the United States army, took his oath of office, and ascended to the bench and proceeded with the sanity trial. After defendant had introduced certain evidence of both doctors and laymen before the jury, and had rested his case, the following occurred:

'Mr. Hickman (counsel for defendant): That is all, your honor.

'Mr. Gilmer (county attorney): The State has no proof.

'The Court: Come up here a minute.

'(Whereupon followed argument at the bench outside the hearing of the jury, and thereupon the proceedings were continued in the presence and hearing of the jury as follows:)

'Mr. Gilmer: Comes now the State of Oklahoma, at the conclusion of all the testimony on the part of both the defendant and the State of Oklahoma, and requests the Court to advise the jury to return a verdict of sanity.

'The Court: Overruled.

'Mr. Gilmer: Exception.

'The Court: Gentlemen of the jury, this case is a little unusual as you gentlemen readily understand. You will agree, Mr. Hickman, that this case may be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury at this stage of the proceedings?

'Mr. Hickman: Yes, your Honor.

'The Court: Now, Gentlemen, as I said, this is a matter that as you see is somewhat unusual. I am of the opinion that if I submitted this to you with the evidence that is before you at this time, there was not evidence here, gentlemen, to show that the man is insane presented to you at this time, but I want this man examined by our representatives of our State and am going to use my efforts to have him committed to the State Sanitarium at Vinita for observation and I don't think there is sufficient evidence here to submit this question to you. There might be some legal problems involved in it, but both the State and the defendant have agreed that this matter may be withdrawn from your consideration and that this man may be sent to an institution for examination. I don't think that what we have had here would be enough for you gentlemen to say that he is not sane. I just don't think there is enough there but still there is--I don't know whether the matter has been fully explored, whether his mental condition has been fully examined and I want to have that...