State v. Reed
| Decision Date | 01 May 1889 |
| Docket Number | 10,379 |
| Citation | 41 La.Ann. 581,7 So. 132 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. FRANK REED |
APPEAL from the Second District Court, Parish of Bienville. Boone, J.
Walter H. Rogers, Attorney General, for the State, Appellee.
John A Richardson and Young, Drew & Stewart, for Defendant and Appellant.
The appeal of the defendant rests on several bills of exception and on the overruling of a motion for a new trial.
Bill No. 1 was taken to the refusal of the judge to admit testimony offered to prove the insanity of the prisoner at the time of trial, in absence of any plea.
There is no pretense that insanity existed at the time when the offence, for which defendant was prosecuted, was committed. In such case, it would have been a legal defense, and under Revised Statutes, Sec. 995, evidence thereof would have been admissible under the general plea of not guilty. But the precise question here presented is a novel one in this State. It is elementary that a man cannot plead, or be tried, or convicted, or sentenced, while in a state of insanity. 1 Bishop Cr. L., § 396; 1 Wharton Cr. L., § 53 et seq.; 2 Bishop Cr. Prac., § 666-668.
If insanity exist at the time of the arraignment, counsel should then make the objection, and, if sustained, the prisoner should be excused from pleading and the proceeding should await his recovery. If not made at arraignment, the objection may be raised, at any time, before commencement of trial, and if sustained, the trial cannot proceed. Even though not made until the trial has begun, it is still not too late, and must be considered and determined in some way. Indeed, even after conviction, it may be opposed as a reason why sentence should not be passed.
The better opinion is that the objection requires no formal plea but may be adequately presented orally, or the court may raise it on its own observation. Reg. vs. Southey, 4 Fost. & F., 864; Reg. vs. Turton, 6 Cox Cr. C., 385; Rex vs. Frith, 22 Howell, St. Tr., 307; Rex vs. Dyson, 7 Car. & P., 305.
Whenever and however raised, evidence must be received, if offered and the issue must, in some way, be disposed of. As to the mode of disposition, it seems that much is left to the discretion of the judge. If made before trial, or after conviction, the general practice is to submit the issue to a jury impanelled for the purpose, though perhaps the judge may, in his discretion, adopt some other suitable method of ascertaining the fact.
If made during the progress of the trial, the court may let the trial proceed and submit the question of present insanity, with that of guilt or innocence, together, to the jury. Reg. vs. Southey, 4 Fost. & F., 864; Reg. vs. Berry, 12 B. D., 447.
All the foregoing propositions are sustained by Mr. Bishop in his work on Criminal Procedure, sections 666-668, with references to numerous authorities which need not be here quoted.
We consider it very clear that the counsel for defendant had the right to raise the question of their client's present sanity, without special or formal plea, and to have evidence received on the point, and to have the issue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godinez v. Moran
...such incapacity was removed. The same was true where he became insane after his plea of not guilty and before trial"); State v. Reed, 41 La.Ann. 581, 582, 7 So. 132 (1889) ("It is elementary that a man cannot plead, or be tried, or convicted, or sentenced, while in a state of insanity"). Se......
-
Lee v. Wiman
...4 Denio, 9; Underwood v. People, 32 Mich. 1; Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U.S. 398, 18 Sup.Ct. 87; Guagando v. State, 41 Tex. 626; State v. Reed, 41 La.Ann. 581, 7 South. "Insanity," however, is a word of broad significance and of varied meanings, depending largely upon the transaction in relatio......
-
Youtsey v. United States
...by the counsel for the accused. Undoubtedly the court was bound to entertain the objection and dispose of it in some way. State v. Reed, 41 La.Ann. 581, 7 So. 132. It suggested that the court did so by personal inspection, and in that way satisfied itself of the competency of the accused to......
-
State v. Gunter
...the progress of the trial. Even after conviction, the objection may be made, as a reason why sentence should not be passed. State v. Reed, 41 La.Ann. 581, 7 So. 132. The of Act No. 261 of 1944 shows that the trial judge is vested with the discretion to determine when there are reasonable gr......