Woods v. State

• Decision Date: 14 May 1914
• Docket Number: 554
• Parties: WOODS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

65 So. 342

186 Ala. 29

WOODS v. STATE.

No. 554

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 14, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; B.M. Miller, Judge.

Randall Woods was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

McClellan J., dissenting.

Frank M. Dominick, of Birmingham, and Jerome T. Fuller, of Centerville, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

The defendant was indicted for murder, and pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. He was convicted by the jury, and sentenced to death.

The state, on the question of the insanity vel non of the defendant, introduced as a witness in its behalf Dr. W.J Nicholson, who testified in substance as follows:

"That he was a practicing physician of 29 years' experience, and was the jail physician. That he had seen Randall Woods, the man on trial, only one time since he had been in jail. That at that time he had a conversation with him, and was called to examine him in regard to his physical condition, and he questioned him. That he asked him about his symptoms and what the trouble was, and that Randall said he had indigestion, and wanted the witness to prescribe for him. That he told him he would have to a great extent govern himself in his diet, and that Randall said that he ate corn bread and liked it. He said his meals were very heavy about his stomach. That he did not see anything unusual about him. *** That he did not examine his mind, but only his physical condition, and that he examined his mind only by talking to him and asking him questions. *** That he had only the experience with insane people of a general practitioner of the country. That during the 29 years of his experience he had seen lots of crazy people, in a large number, but could not give an idea as to the number. *** That, as already stated, he did not make any examination of the defendant's mind. That he made an examination of his physical condition, and as to his indigestion, but that was all the examination he made of him. That it would be hard to give an intelligent answer on the question as to whether it is not a fact that a good many crazy people you would talk to casually you could not tell whether they were crazy or not in other words, that there are so many different forms of insanity. That there are only a few men who can give intelligent answers on insanity and intelligent opinions, and that he supposes it is a fact that a great many times you might talk with a man who was crazy and of unsound mind, and yet you would not detect it in ordinary conversation."

Upon the above testimony, the court permitted the witness to testify, over the objections of the defendant, that, in his opinion, at the time he saw defendant in jail, the defendant was sane.

In our opinion, the above testimony was illegal, and should not have been admitted. We think that it conclusively shows that Dr Nicholson had never examined the defendant with reference to his mental condition, and that, at the only time he is shown by the evidence to have ever seen defendant, the mind of the physician was fixed upon the physical, and not upon the mental, condition of defendant. The conversation was evidently short, as it related simply to a physical indisposition of the defendant, which was not serious; and, for these reasons, we are of the opinion that the quoted testimony shows no such previous acquaintance with, or examination of, the defendant as would justify an opinion, by an expert, as to the sanity vel non of the defendant. In 1 Wharton & Stiles, Medical Jurisprudence, § 278, attention is called to the unsatisfactory character of expert testimony based upon prison interviews, even when these interviews are had with the prisoner, with the view, on the part of...