Ramirez v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6929.) |
| Parties | RAMIREZ v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; W. D. Howe, Judge.
Ramon Ramirez was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
C. L. Vowell, Dist. Atty., of El Paso, W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone and R. G. Storey, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of El Paso county of murder, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for life.
When the case was called for trial, an affidavit, in manner and form sufficient for the purpose intended, was presented to the trial court by counsel appointed to represent appellant, in which affidavit the present insanity of appellant was stated, and a request was made that he be first and separately tried upon that issue, which request was refused by the trial court. Article 39 of our Penal Code is as follows:
Attention is called to the second paragraph of said article. Our conclusion regarding this is that it contemplates a trial and determination, if desired by the accused, of the issue of present insanity separate from and prior to the trial for the commission of the offense with which he is charged. Such we understand to be the decisions in Guagando v. State, 41 Tex. 626, Ex parte Trader, 24 Tex. App. 396, 6 S. W. 533, Witty v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 153 S. W. 1148, and Youtsey v. State, 97 Fed. 940, 38 C. C. A. 562. Such likewise is the effect of the reasoning of this court in Lermo v. State, 68 S. W. 684, and Holland v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 161, 105 S. W. 812. We do not believe the purpose evident from the language of the article quoted can be met by a trial of present insanity at the same time and before the same jury as a trial of the issue of guilty of the crime charged. To try the prisoner for present insanity and for the crime charged in one and the same proceeding would not seem to be in conformity with a statute which provides that he shall not be tried for the offense while he is insane. Not only is the proceeding of such dual trial not according to the statute, but it would be manifestly confusing to the jury and unfair to the accused. If he be now insane, the fair decision of that issue should not be clouded and prejudiced by the introduction of the facts involving a bloodcurdling murder — facts which alone might well so stir the minds of the jury as to make difficult the exercise of calm judgment upon the question of present insanity. The proposition is wholly different from that involved in a trial for crime, wherein the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose v. State
...(1955) (On Motion for Rehearing, at 160); see also State v. Olsen, 360 S.W.2d 398, at 401 (Tex.1962), excerpting Ramirez v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 38, 241 S.W. 1020, at 1021 (1922). Without interweaving federal law, we observe that it does not appear to be inconsistent: e.g., Gardner v. Florid......
-
Brandon v. State
...of the jury as to make difficult the exercise of calm judgment upon the question of present (incompetency),' Ramirez v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 38, 241 S.W. 1020, 1021 (1922)." See Townsend v. State, supra; Martin v. Estelle, The latter two comments of the prosecutor, combined with Upshaw's tes......
-
Manning v. State
...While this Court sometimes recognized the different and distinct mental concepts applicable to each form of sanity, Ramirez v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 38, 241 S.W. 1020 (1922), and Witty, supra, the distinction often went unmentioned in earlier cases. The two forms were often discussed together......
-
Ex parte Hagans
...of the jury as to make difficult the exercise of calm judgment upon the question of present (incompetency)," Ramirez v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 38, 241 S.W. 1020, 1021 (1922). See also Lee v. Alabama, 386 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1967). While Article 46.02, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., was not in effect in 19......