State v. Snell

• Decision Date: 27 April 1907
• Citation: 46 Wash. 327,89 P. 931
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. THOMPSON v. SNELL.

89 P. 931

46 Wash. 327

STATE ex rel. THOMPSON v. SNELL.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 27, 1907

Application of state of Washington, on relation of Maurice Thompson, for a writ of mandate, and application of Chester Thompson for a writ of prohibition against W. H. Snell, judge of the superior court of Pierce county. Applications denied, and temporary restraining order dissolved.

Will H Thompson, for plaintiff.

T. M Vance and Kenneth Mackintosh, for respondent.

ROOT J.

Chester Thompson was tried upon a charge of murder for the killing of George Meade Emory. A verdict of 'not guilty on the ground of insanity' was returned. Before any judgment was entered upon this verdict, the relator, Maurice Thompson brother of Chester, filed in the superior court a complaint as follows, omitting formal parts: 'Maurice Thompson, being duly sworn, on oath says there is in said county an insane person, whose name is Chester Thompson, who, by reason of insanity, is unsafe to be at large (or is suffering under mental derangement), and affiant therefore asks that said person be arrested and taken before the superior judge or county commissioner, within said county or district, for examination.' Thereupon the defendant joined in the request that an examination be had as to his sanity or insanity, and demanded a jury to determine the question. He did not, however, allege that he had recovered his sanity, or that he was sane at that time. The prosecuting attorney, by motion and by a 'supplemental information,' sought to have the trial court enter judgment upon the verdict in accordance with section 6959, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. (section 2208, Pierce's Code). The court having intimated that it would do so, the relator, Maurice Thompson, applies to this court for an alternative writ of mandate to require that court to have an examination under the provisions of section 2660, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. (section 5546, Pierce's Code); and the defendant Chester Thompson applies for a writ prohibiting that court from taking any proceedings upon said verdict prior to a hearing upon the question of his sanity or insanity, upon the complaint made and filed by his brother as aforesaid. At the time of the argument here, we made an order directing that the trial court take no further proceedings in the case until the further orders of this court.

Relator contends that the defendant Thompson is entitled to an examination touching the question of sanity or insanity, under the provisions of section 2660, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. That section reads as follows: 'The superior court of any county in this state, or the judge thereof, upon the application of any person under oath, setting forth that any person, by reason of insanity, is unsafe to be at large, shall cause such person to be brought before him, and he shall summon to appear at the same time and place two or more witnesses, who shall testify, under oath, as to conversation, manners and general conduct upon which said charge of insanity is based; and shall also cause to appear before him, at the same time and place, two reputable physicians, before whom the judge shall examine the charge, unless the accused, or any one in his or her behalf, shall demand a jury to decide upon the question of insanity. If such demand be made, the trial shall be by jury. If no jury be demanded, and the said physician, after a careful hearing of the case, and a personal examination of the alleged insane person, shall certify under oath that the person examined is insane, and the case is of a recent or curable character, or that the said insane person is of a homicidal, suicidal, or incendiary disposition, or that from any other violent symptoms the said insane person would be dangerous to his or her own life, or the lives and property of the community in which he or she may live; and if said physicians shall also certify to the name, age, nativity, residence, occupation, length of time in this state, state last from, previous habits, premonitory symptoms, apparent cause, and class of insanity, duration of the disease, and present condition, as nearly as can be ascertained by inquiry and examination; and if the judge shall be satisfied that the facts revealed in the examination establish the existence of the insanity of the person accused, and that it is of a recent or curable nature, or of a homicidal, suicidal, or incendiary character, or that from the violence of the symptoms the said insane person would be dangerous to his or her own life, or to the lives and property of others, if at large, he shall order such insane person sent to the hospital for the insane. If the trial has been by jury, and the accused declared insane by said jury, and the insanity be of the character above described, the said insane person shall be ordered by the judge to be sent to the hospital for the insane.'

In their argument, relator's counsel, in speaking of this statute, say: 'It covers every conceivable case for the determination of the mental condition of any person in this state. It is a general statute, covers all cases,' etc. We agree with counsel that it is a general statute. It covers all cases not specifically provided for by some other statute; but cases where the defendant has been acquitted of an offense on the ground of insanity such as the case at bar, are provided for by another statute. Section 6959, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. It applies specially and solely to such cases. The statute reads as follows: 'When any person indicted or informed against for an offense shall, on trial, be acquitted by reason of insanity, the jury, in giving their verdict of not guilty, shall state that it was given for such cause; and...