Seay v. State

• Decision Date: 04 May 1922
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 429.
• Citation: 93 So. 403,207 Ala. 453
• Parties: SEAY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

93 So. 403

207 Ala. 453

SEAY v. STATE.

8 Div. 429.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 4, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C. P. Almon, Judge.

F Whitt Seay was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Callahan & Harris, of Decatur, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON C.J.

This appellant was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree and was given the death panalty. The homicide and the defendant's commission of same was established without dispute, and the only seriously controverted issue that was submitted to the jury was his insanity vel non at the time of the killing. The defendant offered much evidence tending to establish his insanity, including the opinion of several alienists or mental experts. The state, on the other hand offered several nonexpert witnesses, who were acquainted with the defendant and who testified that he was sane. The state also offered as a witness Dr. Jackson, who qualified as a medical expert, and who disclosed a study of leading works on insanity and more experience therewith than the average doctor. Not only was a predicate laid as to the qualification of Dr. Jackson as an expert, but he was permitted to give his opinion, upon direct examination, as an expert upon mental disease, and was asked for his opinion as to the sanity of this defendant, based, not upon his acquaintance and personal observation alone, but in connection with his "knowledge of nervous and mental disease." The witness said:

"I would say that he is sane, so far as my knowledge of his past is concerned."

The state having gotten the benefit of this testimony, it was but just and fair for the defendant to cross-examine this witness, and get his opinion as to his mental condition based upon the hypothesis contained in the question especially in view of the fact that said witness Jackson guarded his opinion that defendant was sane by disclaiming, or excluding, a knowledge of his past, and the hypothetical question sought to get defendant's past history, condition, and conduct before said witness, and then get from him an opinion based upon all of the facts instead of a part of same. Nor can the action of the trial court be justified upon the statement of counsel for the state that Dr. Jackson had not been introduced by the state as an expert, as he was shown to be such and so used by the character of questions asked him upon direct examination and his replies thereto, or by the subsequent statement of Dr. Jackson that he did not claim to be an alienist or an expert on insanity. We think the witness simply meant to say that he did not treat insane patients, but did...