State v. Helm

• Decision Date: 23 March 1901
• Citation: 61 S.W. 915,69 Ark. 167
• Parties: STATE v. HELM
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

61 S.W. 915

69 Ark. 167

STATE v. HELM

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 23, 1901

Appeal from Independence Circuit Court, FREDERIC D. FULKERSON Judge.

Jeff Davis, Attorney General, Chas. Jacobson and S.D. Campbell for appellant.

When arraigned, if the accused has reason enough to appreciate his peril, and comprehend his condition with reference to the proceedings pending, he may be tried, though not entirely sane. 23 Ark. 34; 47 Am. Dec. 216; 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 622. The instruction of the court as to the degree of mental capacity required was erroneous. 3 Wh. & Beck. Med. Jur 176-7.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

P. B. Helm was indicted, in the Independence circuit court, for the crime of forgery and uttering a forged instrument. He waived arraignment, and pleaded not guilty. The jury who were impaneled to try him found him guilty of forgery, and left his punishment to the court, who assessed the same at two years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary. In due time he was brought before the court to hear the judgment, and, being informed of the nature of the indictment against him, his plea to the same, and the verdict of the jury, the punishment assessed, and the effect and consequences thereof, and being asked by the court if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him, he said, by his counsel, he was insane. After inquiring into his mental condition, the court ordered a jury to be impaneled to determine whether he be insane, which was done, and they, after hearing the evidence adduced before them, found him to be insane; and the court ordered that he be confined in the lunatic asylum "until discharged therefrom as well," and that he be then confined in the jail of Independence county until, in the opinion of the court, he is sane, when judgment will be pronounced against him; and the state appealed.

The following was, substantially, the testimony before the jury: Dr. Kennerly testified: "That defendant had been addicted to the morphine habit for the last five years; that morphine has different effects upon different persons: Its excessive use is detrimental, affects the digestion, assimilation and later the brain. That morphine has demoralized defendant's mental and physical condition. He had examined defendant two or three weeks ago, and again about an hour or two ago."

Q. "I'll ask you whether or not, in your opinion, from your examination and your knowledge of this man, P. B. Helm, whether he has sufficient mental capacity to rationally comprehend his own condition with reference to the proceedings here in court? A. As compared to a rational man, he has not. He has no conception, as a rational and sane man would."

Q. "Then in your opinion he does not rationally comprehend his own condition with reference to these proceedings? A. As a rational man, no, sir."

"The last stage of the morphine habit is dementia. Defendant has not reached that stage; has not lost his understanding; has memory, reason and will, and is able to exercise those faculties to some extent. Have talked to defendant today in reference to this action, and he knew what I was talking about."

Q. "If the court should call the defendant up now and inform him of the nature of the indictment which he was tried on, and of the verdict of guilty against him, and then explain the effect and consequences of that verdict, in your opinion, would he understand the explanation of the court? A. I think he would, but he could not appreciate the extent of it, as a well-balanced brain would."

"I take the ordinary human being as the standard of a well-balanced brain. It is a rare thing to find a perfectly balanced brain.

Q. (By the court.) "Has he sufficient mental capacity to intelligently comprehend and intelligently reason and intelligently understand what is going on now? A. No, sir."

Dr. Dorr testified: "Examined defendant in 1895 or 1896, and also within the last month. He has used morphine to the extent that his nervous system is impaired. From my knowledge of defendant and examination of him, in my opinion, defendant has not sufficient mental capacity to rationally comprehend his own condition with reference to the present proceedings as a sane man would."

"From examination of defendant, think defendant knows something of what is going on now. He understands what is said; has use of the senses; has the power of perception to a certain extent. If the court should bring defendant up now, and explain the nature of the indictment, he would understand that explanation in a way, but don't think he would understand it as a sane person, taking the average human being as the standard of a sane person. If the court explained to the defendant the nature of the indictment, that he had been tried by a jury and found guilty on the charge, and the nature and effect of the judgment, defendant would have some understanding of it.

Q. (By the court.) "In your opinion, from your knowledge and examination of the defendant, has he sufficient mental capacity to intelligently comprehend what is going on now with reference to this proceeding? A. I do not think he does, to the extent of a sane person."

John A. Hinkle testified that he was sheriff, and brought defendant back from Neosho, Mo. Had conversation with defendant yesterday, and defendant understood all that was said to him.

Upon this testimony the court, over the objections of the state, instructed the jury as follows:

No. 1. "Gentlemen of the jury, this is an inquiry as to the sanity or insanity of P. B. Helm. You are instructed that if you find, from a preponderance of the evidence in this case, that the defendant is now so afflicted with mental disease that when informed by the court of the nature of the indictment, his plea and the verdict of conviction thereon, and of the effect and consequences thereof, he would not intelligently understand, intelligently reason and intelligently comprehend such matters, you would be authorized to find him insane; on the other hand, unless you believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is so afflicted by mental disease, when informed by the court of the indictment, the plea, the effect of a conviction thereon, and the consequences thereof, he would not intelligently understand, intelligently reason or intelligently comprehend the matters, you would be authorized to find him sane."

Were the proceedings of the court in accordance with law, and was the jury correctly instructed?

The statutes of this state provide as follows: "When the defendant appears for judgment, he must be informed by the court of the nature of the indictment, his plea, and the verdict thereon, if any, and he must be asked if he has any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him. He may show for cause against the judgment any sufficient ground for a new trial, or for arrest of judgment. He may also show that he is insane. If the court is of opinion that there is reasonable ground for believing he is insane, the question of his insanity shall be determined by a jury of twelve qualified jurors, to be summoned and impaneled as directed by the court. If the jury do not find him insane, judgment shall be pronounced. If they find him insane, he must be kept in confinement either in the county jail or lunatic asylum, until, in the opinion of the court, he becomes sane, when judgment shall be pronounced." Sand. & H. Dig., §§ 2284-2286.

These statutes do not require that insanity shall be shown by any formal plea; and we can see no good reason why it may not and think it may, be adequately shown orally. State v. Reed, 41 La.Ann. 581, 583, 7 So. 132; State v. Peacock, 50 N.J.L. 34, 11 A. 270. Upon it being shown, it is the duty of the court to inquire into the truth of the allegation,...