Title: Cogburn v. State
Citation: 281 S.W.2d 38
Docket Number: N/A
State: Tennessee
Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court
Date: June 10, 1955

281 S.W.2d 38 (1955) James COGBURN and Roy Cogburn v. STATE of Tennessee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. June 10, 1955. J.B. Avery, Jr., Alamo, for plaintiffs in error. Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. BURNETT, Justice. The plaintiffs in error have appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court based upon the verdict of a jury finding them presently insane. They in support of this appeal filed an able brief with many assignments of error to the proceeding there. They, too, through able counsel have made an oral argument. In view of the disposition that we think must be made of this case it will not be necessary for us to consider all of these assignments of error. These parties were indicted upon a charge of homicide and prior to their arraignment the District Attorney General filed a petition averring that he had been advised by certain doctors, who had attended these plaintiffs in error during their confinement in jail, that a psychiatric examination of them should be made. The petition of the District Attorney General was granted by the court and the plaintiffs in error committed to the Hospital for the Criminal Insane for observation and treatment. They were committed and a report made on November 26, 1954, to the effect that both of them were insane and not competent to stand trial upon the criminal charge. When the indictment against these parties was called for trial, the District Attorney *39 General suggested the present insanity of each of them. To this suggestion of present insanity, the plaintiffs in error through their counsel filed a plea in abatement setting forth in substance that the prosecution could not suggest the present insanity of persons charged with a crime but that the same was a personal privilege to the person so charged and that the plaintiffs in error were not pleading present insanity. This plea in abatement was overruled and the plaintiffs in error placed on trial upon the plea of present insanity and a jury after hearing the evidence of the doctors offered on behalf of the State that they were presently insane and some several witnesses offered on their behalf found that they were presently insane and not mentally capable of going to trial. It is from this verdict that the present appeal is sought. Subsection (5) of Code Section 4459.1, Williams' Annotated Code, provides: Thus we have a clear statutory authorization for the District Attorney's action herein and the trial judge's action in submitting these parties for examination. For reasons hereinafter stated we think that these parties would have had a like right and duty under the common law in the absence of a statute. Insofar as we can determine there is no statute in this State applicable to a situation as here presented other than that above quoted which is a part of the chapter and general Act providing for the commission of insane persons to the hospital. But insofar as we can determine there is nothing else in this Act or otherwise applicable to such parties in criminal prosecutions. We are definitely of the opinion, in the absence of an applicable statute, that the investigation of the present insanity or the mental disorder of one accused of a crime when such is brought to the attention of the trial judge or the District Attorney General that it becomes their duty to make a further investigation into this matter and that such actions are controlled by the common law. Of course so much of the common law as has not been abrogated or repealed by statute is in full force and effect in this State. Simpson v. Drake, 150 Tenn. 84, 262 S.W. 41. In a comparatively recent case on the question (1948) the Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251, 49 S.E. (2d) 458, 460, made this very appropriate statement: We think that this is the correct rule to apply in Tennessee and so adopt the quoted *40 statement as the rule applicable in this State. In our investigation of the matter and in reading the authorities cited by able counsel for both sides, we have found an excellent annotation in 142 A.L.R. beginning at page 961 and concluding at page 1015. This annotation gives a full and exhaustive treatment on the questions here presented. All of the cases cited by the State in its brief are analyzed or referred to in this annotation. This note follows an earlier note in 49 A.L.R. beginning at page 807. We in this State have in effect recognized that the Court may raise the question. This Court in Green v. State, 1890, 88 Tenn. 634, 14 S.W. 489, held that the appellate court (this Court) might of its own motion institute such an investigation where in the absence of the plea in the trial court of present insanity of the accused the court was led to believe upon thorough investigation of the record before them that the prisoner at the time of trial was insane. Thus this Court raised the question and made a further investigation of the prisoner's present insanity. It seems to us that it is just as important that an accused should not be required to plead to an indictment for a crime or be tried for his life or liberty while he is insane as it is that he be not held responsible for the acts committed while he was insane. Or as said by this Court in Jordan v. State, 124 Tenn. 81, 135 S.W. 327, 329, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 1115: Thus we think that the trial judge was well within his discretionary rights in granting and submitting to the jury specially impaneled for the purpose the issue of whether or not these parties were presently insane. As we read the opinion in Firby v. State, 62 Tenn. 358, it seems to us that that is what was done there. Regardless of what was done in that case the authorities seem to us to warrant and direct that such action be taken by the trial judge. Under the facts of the instant case the judgment here is not final. Thus in view of this fact that the judgment is not final the State very forcibly and reasonably argues that the appeal should be dismissed for this reason. In support of this argument the State says: It seems to us that these authorities are somewhat analogous to the situation here presented and that the argument of the State to strike the appeal is good and should be sustained which is accordingly done.