State v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 01 April 1916
• Docket Number: 13133.
• Citation: 90 Wash. 479,156 P. 542
• Parties: STATE v. PETERSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

156 P. 542

90 Wash. 479

STATE v. PETERSON.

No. 13133.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 1, 1916

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.

Henry Peterson was convicted of an attempt to carnally know a child, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Glasgow & Waite, of Seattle, for appellant.

Alfred H. Lundin and Joseph A. Barto, both of Seattle, for the State.

PARKER J.

The defendant, Henry Peterson, was charged by information with an attempt to commit the crime of carnal knowledge of a child. His trial in the superior court resulted in a verdict of 'guilty as charged.' Thereupon judgment was rendered sentencing him to the penitentiary, from which judgment he has appealed to this court.

On September 21, 1914, this prosecution was commenced by the filing of the information. On September 30, 1914, appellant, being duly arraigned, pleaded 'not guilty.' On November 16, 1914, counsel for appellant moved the court for the appointment of a commission of physicians to examine appellant as to his sanity, which motion was on that day denied. At the same time appellant was, by the court, granted leave to file a plea of insanity and ordered to file the same immediately. Thereupon counsel for appellant filed a plea of insanity as a defense to the charge, in form substantially as prescribed by section 2174 Rem. & Bal. Code. On December 22, 1914, the case being called for trial, counsel for appellant again moved the court for the appointment of a commission to examine appellant as to his sanity, which motion was by the court denied, and the trial proceeded, verdict being rendered against appellant the following day. On January 9, 1915, counsel for appellant filed a petition in the case, again making application to the court to have a commission appointed to examine appellant as to his sanity. This petition was verified by counsel to the effect 'that he believes defendant to be insane and mentally irresponsible.' The prior motions appear to have been made orally. In any event the record before us does not show them to have been made in writing, nor does the record contain any showing of facts upon which they were based. This last application for the appointment of a commission, and also appellant's motion for new trial then pending, were denied, and on January 11, 1915, final judgment was rendered against appellant, sentencing him to the penitentiary.

The contention made in appellant's behalf, principally relied upon by his counsel, is, in substance, that the trial court erred in proceeding to trial and final judgment without first causing the question of appellant's sanity to be inquired into and determined by a commission as applied for by the motions and the petition above noticed. In so far as appellant's alleged insanity had to do with the question of his guilt is concerned, he was amply protected by the plea of insanity filed in his behalf. There was thereby brought before the jury the question of appellant's insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, and also the question of the continuation of such insanity. That special plea was filed, evidence introduced in support thereof, the jury fully instructed thereon, and proper forms of verdict submitted to the jury, as provided by sections 2127, 2175, Rem. & Bal. Code, as follows:

'When it is desired to interpose the defense of insanity or mental irresponsibility on behalf of one charged with a crime, the defendant, his counsel or other person authorized by law to appear and act for him, shall at the time of pleading to the information or indictment file a plea in writing in addition to the plea or pleas required or permitted by other laws than this, setting up (1) his insanity or mental irresponsibility at the time of the commission of the crime charged, and (2) whether the insanity or mental irresponsibility still exists, or (3) whether the defendant has become sane or mentally responsible between the time of the commission of the crime and the time of the trial. * * *

'If the plea of insanity or mental irresponsibility be interposed, and evidence upon that issue be given, the court shall instruct the jury when giving the charge, that in case a verdict of acquittal of the crime charged be returned, they shall also return special verdicts finding (1) whether the defendant committed the crime and if so, (2) whether they acquit him because of his insanity or mental irresponsibility at the time of its commission, (3) whether the insanity or mental irresponsibility continues and exists at the time of the trial, and (4) whether, if such condition of insanity or mental irresponsibility does not exist at the time of the trial, there is such likelihood of a relapse or recurrence of the insane or mental irresponsible condition, that the defendant is not a safe person to be at large. Forms for the return of the special verdicts shall be submitted to the jury with the forms for the general verdicts.'

Counsel for appellant seem to proceed upon the theory that these sections of the statute have to do only with the question of insanity in so far as it relates to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and that they have no relation to insanity of the accused at the time of trial or judgment as affecting the right of the state to proceed with his trial and render judgment against him. Assuming, for present purposes, that this is a correct view of these sections of the statute, and having in mind the general rule of the common law that an accused person cannot be lawfully tried or have judgment rendered against him while he is insane, as held in State ex rel. Mackintosh v. Superior Court, 45 Wash. 248, 88 P. 207, we are of the opinion that it is a matter within the discretion of the trial court as to whether or not it will enter upon an examination of the question of the sanity of the accused with a view of determining the right of the state to put him upon trial and render judgment against him. We know of no statute of this state which makes it mandatory upon the trial court to enter upon such an inquiry or to appoint a commission looking to the determination of such a question. In states having statutes authorizing the appointment of such a commission with a view of determining the sanity of an accused...