State ex rel. Paine v. Potts

• Decision Date: 10 September 1897
• Docket Number: 12,585
• Citation: 22 So. 738,49 La.Ann. 1500
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE EX REL. PATRICK PAINE v. JUDGE W. N. POTTS, FIFTH DISTRICT COURT

22 So. 738

49 La.Ann. 1500

STATE EX REL. PATRICK PAINE v. JUDGE W. N. POTTS, FIFTH DISTRICT COURT

No. 12,585

Supreme Court of Louisiana

September 10, 1897

Submitted September 6, 1897

APPLICATION for Writ of Mandamus.

E. T Lamkin and Frank Vaughn, for Relator.

BREAUX J. NICHOLLS, C., J. and MILLER, J., absent.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

The proceedings are by mandamus to compel the trial judge to cause the defendant to be brought before him to be examined touching his sanity or insanity; to hear witnesses with the view of obtaining a judgment of interdiction.

The history of the case shows that on the trial before the District Court evidence was introduced before the jury to sustain defendant's plea of insanity; that the District Judge charged the jury fully upon the law of insanity as applicable to the case.

The trial judge avers in his return to the rule nisi, issued by this court on the application for a writ of mandamus, that during the trial he not only listened to the evidence upon the subject of the defendant's insanity, but watched carefully for any indication of insanity during the trial, and that he was satisfied that the accused was sane and he refused to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.

The ruling and sentence of the District Court were brought up for review on appeal. Our decision affirmed its correctness in June, 1897. Ante p. 1092.

In August following, the attorneys for the defendant petitioned the District Court for his interdiction and alleged the insanity of defendant.

The trial judge, in support of his refusal to grant the prayer of the petition, alleged in his return that "the verdict of the jury supported as it is by the judgment of the District and Supreme Courts is res judicata; that it conclusively establishes the fact that the relator, Patrick Paine, at the time he killed his wife, was sane and responsible for that act.

"As stated in my judgment refusing to take further action in this matter, and as your Honors will see by reference to the application for the commission and investigation in the matter, it is not alleged nor pretended that the insanity complained of has arisen since the trial of this case."

Here counsel for the defendant seek to reopen issues which were considered and passed upon in the trial of the case. We agree with the District Judge; those issues to the date of the conviction are now closed.

In the application for the interdiction the insanity of the defendant is alleged without specially averring whether it is based upon conduct and utterances of the defendant since the trial or prior to the trial.

It is well settled if one who has committed a capital offence becomes non compos mentis after conviction, he shall not be executed.

But the burden was upon the defence to specially allege that the insanity had developed and become evident since the trial.

In State vs. Patton, 12 An. 288, this...