Peacock v. State
| Decision Date | 07 August 1888 |
| Citation | 50 N.J.L. 653,14 A. 893 |
| Parties | PEACOCK v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to supreme court; REED, Judge. See 11 Atl. Rep. 270.
Jacob C. Hendrickson and C. A. Bergen, for plaintiff in error. Charles E. Hendrickson, for the State.
MCGILL, Ch. The plaintiff in error, during his trial before the Burlington court of quarter sessions, upon an indictment for assault with intent to rape, absented himself from the court, and remained away until after the verdict was rendered. Before the trial was concluded his counsel offered to prove, by a witness then under examination, that his absence was caused by his insanity. It was announced that the purpose of the offer was to rebut the presumption that the absence was from the defendant's sense of guilt or in his own wrong. The court overruled the offer, and suggested that the defendant's acts and conversation might be proved to show the excited condition of his mind. Later in the trial, when one of the defendant's counsel was under examination, an offer was made to show by him the defendant's insanity. The object of this offer was stated to be, to explain the defendant's absence from the trial. It also was overruled, and the court, as it did in the case of the first offer, suggested that the defendant's acts and conversation be proved to show his excited condition. The offers were not for the purpose of staying the trial because, by insanity, the defendant was incapacitated from making a just defense; but were avowedly made with the design of precluding hurtful inferences which would inevitably and naturally be drawn from the absence and failure to testify. I think, with the supreme court, that the offered proof was competent, relevant, and of right admissible. Their purpose was to prove a positive mental incapacity more or less permanent. Such a condition would not only serve the end which the offers were designed to accomplish, but would also, because of the humanity of our laws, necessitate the suspension of the trial itself. The court expressly refused to allow this proof, and suggested that it would allow the defense to show that the defendant was in an excited condition when he left the court. I fail to understand how the suggested proof could establish that the defendant's absence from the trial and failure to testify was involuntary. As the case stood at the time of the offers, the apprehended danger was from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lucas
...plan his defense, cannot be put to trial. State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 11 A. 270 (Sup.Ct.1887), reversed on other grounds, 50 N.J.L. 653, 14 A. 893 (E. & A.1888); State v. Novel, 102 N.J.L. 659, 133 A. 274 (E. & A.1926); State v. Auld, 2 N.J. 426, 67 A.2d 175 (1949); State v. Gibson, 15 ......
-
State v. Butler
...his defense has always been recognized. State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 11 A. 270 (Sup.Ct.1887), reversed on other grouns 50 N.J.L. 653, 14 A. 893 (E. & A. 1888); State v. Noel, 3 N.J.Misc. 1154, 131 A. 70 (O. & T. Other instances are to be found. In State v. Emrich, 252 S.W.2d 310 (Mo.Sup.......
-
Aponte v. State
...659, 668, 133 A. 274 (E. & A. 1926); State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 36, 11 A. 270 (Sup.Ct.1887), reversed on other grounds, 50 N.J.L. 653, 14 A. 893 (E. & A. 1888). The proceedings here were conducted under N.J.S. 2A:163--2, N.J.S.A., applicable to a person in confinement under commitment,......
-
State v. Spivey
...jury empaneled for that purpose. (State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 36, 11 A. 270, 271 (Sup.Ct.1887), rev'd on other grounds, 50 N.J.L. 653, 14 A. 893 (E. & A.1888)). See State v. Lucas, Supra, 30 N.J. at 73, 152 A.2d 50. However, absent any indication of incapacity to stand trial, the court ......